500 words a day on whatever I want

microaggression

Microaggressions are those small everyday acts and subtle indignities through which the privileged, often without knowing it, make the marginalized feel, well, marginalized. This post looks at those by whites against people of colour in America, though women, gays, poor people and others experience them too.

Examples:

“Where are you really from?” – where New Jersey does not count as the right answer because they do not see you as really American (perpetual foreigner stereotype).

“I don’t see you as black.” – as if being black is some terrible thing they have to overlook (colour-blindness).

“I understand racism – whites painted swastikas on my house.” – as if American anti-Semitism is pretty much like anti-black racism.

“It’s not racist, you’re just being oversensitive.” – discounting your thoughts and feelings as if whites are better judges of racism.

Assuming you are good at sports – or mathematics – because of your race.

“You’re not like the other blacks” – as if the other blacks are so stereotypical

Making you feel like you are representing your whole race.

“You are so articulate/speak such good English!” – as if only whites have a good command of English

“She’s pretty for a black girl” – as if white girls are prettier than black girls

Being hypervisible to shopowners, the police, etc.

Telling a racist joke

Showing a Confederate flag

And on and on.

The YouTube videos about racism by Reckless Tortuga (pictured above) and Chescaleigh’s video about the stuff white girls say to black girls are full of excellent examples of microaggressions, from purse clutching to hair touching.

In most cases whites do not mean to be racist and, in fact, think they are not being racist at all. But so many are sunk in a racist mindset and blind to it that it comes out in hundreds of little ways like this.

If you try to point it out to them they often get upset, no matter how gently and kindly you tell them. They say that you are being oversensitive, that you have a chip on your shoulder, that you see race in everything, that you are making a big deal out of nothing, etc.

It is because of this kind of stuff that many whites feel like they arewalking on eggshells when it comes to blacks. It is like no matter what they say or do it will be seen as racist!

The trouble is not that blacks see racism in everything but that most whites see racism in nothing – except like the Klan and the n-word (and not always even then).

In most cases any one microaggression is not a big deal and people of colour let it go – they have to pick their battles. But it is the constant rain of microaggressions day after day and month after month and year after year that wears away at one’s spirit. It can even affect your physical health. And the most dangerous microaggressions by far are those you do not see as microaggressions.

One micro-aggression is calling a black person by another name. I lodged a complaint against a man I have worked with for several year. That was almost a year and a half ago and I have yet to hear anything. An investigation was done, the man in question admitted to it. The investigator recommended an outside investigation as they deduced it as systemic in nature. Well there is an old saying; ‘give them rope and they will hang themselves. These micro-aggressions and systemic racism go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

As men, even according to this posting, we perform “microaggressions” against women. For this response, I will confess to conscious microaggressions, and I will presume the same to be true for you (that if you are ever microaggressive to a woman you are so consciously), so why do you pass the Occidental and claim:

In most cases whites do not mean to be racist and, in fact, think they are not being racist at all. But so many are sunk in a racist mindset and blind to it that it comes out in hundreds of little ways like this.

In my rare instances of sexism, for instance, I know full well that I am being sexist. Do you mean that these Occidentals genuinely don’t understand that they are being racist or do you mean that these Occidentals don’t think that they are being taken as racist?

Because, in the responses for your thread on Chescaleigh, some have confessed to outrageous racist acts under the pretext of camaraderie, but these acts were so blatantly racist (like evoking slavery or segregation) that it would be absurd to think the Occidental unconscious of the “racism,” per se.

I know it is little comfort, but I am sincerely so very sorry that you have to experience these microaggressions, as well as the widespread macro-aggression. I see that it has to be so frustrating and painful and sickening to constantly experience this.

Abagond, as I’m sure you know, your blog is so extremely valuable. I fervently hope it helps insulate your African American readers from the ill effects this aggression may have on them. Thank you for your excellent work and for the energy that you put into it.

Please inform me of any and all indignities that, through ignorance I may cause you in my correspondence on this blog, and continue to tell your white readers all the indignities you experience no matter how slight. It is the only way they can begin to diminish.

This might seem weird to some and kinda sad to others but I was in NYC this weekend. Now I usually experience racism when I go out and I mean to the point that I do not even like going out. Sometimes I will just stay in the house because I dont feel like it. I must say however, that I did not experience any of what I normally experience. I went to breakfast at a really nice diner in Manhattan both days in NYC and I noticed that non of the white women grabbed their purses because they saw me sit next to them. People spoke to me and it was actually nice.

However, when I sat next to another black woman on the train returning to my city. I got major attitude from her and I dont know why. I an an attractive black female and so was she.

I have to disagree with one of the micro-aggressions you listed Abagond. This one is not, in my opinion a micro-aggression every time or by every person.

“Do you work here?” – because you are the same race as the workers even though you are not dressed like them.

I have been asked the exact same question at just about every store I have been in through the years. I have had people of every size and color ask it even though what I am wearing does not match up with what workers are wearing. Are they all showing micro-aggression towards me, or are they just seeing something in the way I am acting that leads them to believe I work there?

Maybe there is such a thing as being oversensitive sometimes as well. Can anyone honestly tell me they have never made a mistake, misunderstood someone, misheard someone? I know I can’t say I never screw up and I honestly believe that is a basic to being human, we all screw up and misjudge the situation at times.

I do not doubt for even a second that the problems of micro-aggression exist. I know they do from my own personal experience and I have hurt and been hurt by them. That being said, I have to agree with many other posters here and say “Great post Abagond!” I have been enjoying the thought provoking material and discussion(s).

Good and funny! And very true. Just makes me feel like cussin. No! I did not say cursing. I said plain old fashioned cussin. lol. The one that used to really get me was, crossing the street when they saw me coming. The next time that happens, I am going to cross to, and see how that shakes ’em up.

My ‘favorite’, is the one where you have shopped at a store for 3, 5 or 10 years ,spent ‘good money’, ‘have ‘friendly’ chatter with store workers/owners on a regular basis, and you are still, followed around the store. Or you are seated by restroom/kitchen in a relatively empty/empty restaurant.

Another one of my ‘favorites’, was when I was shopping at a local chain grocery store, which I have for years; I was in the snacks section, ie, nuts, popcorn, soda. I’m the only one in this aisle, in an otherwise busy store, when I hear over the loud speaker, “we have a smooth criminal in snacks, a smooth criminal in snacks”. huh. Is that supposed to be moi? And, sure enough, I look up and two store workers are suddenly ‘shifting items around on the shelves near me. wow! This is the same store where a checker once over rang me by 12 dollars. Very depressing. Sometimes by the time I get home from shopping, I feel beat up from the subtle and not so ubtle forms of microaggressions I go through. It’s like running an emotional gauntle every damn day..

‘That’s not racist. The same thing happened to me.‘ – Discounts a person’s experience and feelings. Maybe what happened to him/her WAS racist.

‘He’s not a racist. He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.’ – Just because he has not exhibited racism in your presence, or you think he’s a nice guy, doesn’t mean he is not a racist.

‘There’s no racism in this town, organization, school, church, etc.’ – If you are not a person of color, how would you really know?

‘She must have low self-esteem.’ – (Referring to a BM/WW couple). This statement is usually made to another white person while in a black person’s presence.

Describing a black person as “articulate.” – This may seem like a compliment, but it implies that a well-spoken, well-dressed black person is something out of the ordinary. I have never heard a white person use the word “articulate” to describe another. Maybe being articulate is a given if a person is white.

Referring to black men as boys – Yes, it still happens.

The use of politically correct “code” words and phrases: “thugs,” “inner city,” “REAL Americans,” “those people,” ”gangsta government,” ”People who don’t want to work,“ “The neighborhood has really gone down,” etc. These words and phrases are safe, especially in the work place. By using them EVERYBODY will know what you mean, but they won’t get you in trouble.

Aga,
It has come to my attention that whites are very aware of these microaggressions.
When they are in the company of other whites, they relax, smile and act normal.

When a black person enters, the mood changes, however slight but it does change. I now know that whites are racist because they want to be.
This isn’t a deep, subconscious, unknown thought / behaviour.
They are that way because they choose to be. And they rather enjoy it.

Can you honestly tell me that a grown person, living in the United States doesn’t understand, ” do unto others?”
Then why, does that golden rule go out the window when a black / brown person is involved?

If I were to list all the code words I’ve heard at work, all the shopping traumas, all the problems when I travel to say, Maine or Vermont and I’m the only black person for miles, we’ll be here til next week.

No…no, my friend. Do not be fooled.
Videos showing the ignorance only serves to better educate the racist into becoming a SUPER RACIST.
Because now, they know how to cover it up even better.

You could in fact refer to it as another (wary and wearisome thing ..) “black tax,” a tax that white people do not pay.

Thats an interesting concept and analogy, Matari…! One I am sure Abagond could develop and elaborate on…

These are Black taxes (condoning racism as natural) demanded by white people we must pay! Of course POC must pay them too but Black people are charged the most. Just look what happens when we refuse to pay or call the taxes unjust!

By contrast what are the taxes (if any) demanded from Black people that white people should pay? And what happens when they refuse to pay them?

“It has come to my attention that whites are very aware of these microaggressions. …

No…no, my friend. Do not be fooled.
Videos showing the ignorance only serves to better educate the racist into becoming a SUPER RACIST.
Because now, they know how to cover it up even better.”

That crossed my mind – that videos like that will just lead to better hidden racism, not to any weakening of racism.

I think whites know what they are doing in SOME cases, but I am not prepared to say they know in MOST cases. My thinking is that they would hide it better if they knew since most of them seem to have this fragile self-image of not being racist.

Well, if people think of themselves they are not racist, one should give the benefit of the doubt to them, on the other hand growing up in the USA makes it hard not to act “normal in a racist society”, whether one is “black or “white”, so acting non-racist, race-blind, so to say, has to be learned too.

I am waiting for and I am sure that it will happen one day for a white person (who is tired of racism) records a conversation between whites behind closed doors where they are going off about blacks when they are showing how obsessively racists they actually are. Show them using the N-word. Then post it on Utube. If you recorded a conversation among blacks behind closed doors it would only be complaining about things that are true. It is not the same kind of hatred that you would see with whites behind closed doors! I am waiting for that Utube video.

That crossed my mind – that videos like that will just lead to better hidden racism, not to any weakening of racism.

It has been remarked to me recently that blatant racism is better than covert racism using the U.S and the UK as comparisons of this – I appreciate that neither is preferable but what do other commenters think?

On the topic of favorite microaggressions. I remember how in Junior High School, the younger Jewish boys would outright dart away from me. It was incredibly uncomfortable for me to see the slow moving children actually conceive that not only would I chase them, but that they could outrun me if I had. Worse off–I was in Junior High School. There was nothing like a walk home from school to remind someone that they were ‘feared,’ or for the ‘individualist’ audience, not just an individual.

@ Abagond

My thinking is that they would hide it better if they knew since most of them seem to have this fragile self-image of not being racist.

I think that your post explains this. Most everyone is trained to only see racism in the Klan and the n-word (as used by Whites.) As such, few Whites will admit to being in the Klan, unless their heads are shaven.

But you know what–when I wrote “most everyone” I meant “most everyone.” Chescaleigh herself doesn’t view the comments as “racist;” going by the definition that racism suggests a racial supremacy.

Is this a problem with the normal conception of what accounts for ‘racism?’ For instance, in following some of your comments, I noticed that disputes often surround the definition of the word, though the word is never defined.

More, I remember one time being in a rap concert and feeling uncomfortable by the use of the n-word by the Latino speaker. But when I reflected with the woman with whom I went, she thought nothing of even a White person using the word.

Which of course brings me to another point. The n-word has become attached to an economic background despite historically being a racial word. Meaning, from what I observed, Black people allow White people to use the n-word depending on the latter’s economic background. Have you also noticed this? Does the disconnect between the youth and their parents (also the lower and middle classes) make the ‘n-word’ debate more confused than it should be?

I say this to point out that White people do use the word–but don’t see their usage as ‘racist’ after Black people allow them to say it.

If a white person were to read this blog, how would he not be justified in his wholesale suspicion of the “black collective?”

If there is in fact a large minority of alienated, paranoid and perpetually hostile “blacks” then these “micro-aggressions” must be divided into irrational reactions AND SURVIVAL MECHANISMS. Indeed, many “micro-aggressive” acts are SURVIVAL INSTINCTS. To be generally suspicious of “blacks” as a “white person” is to be utterly concerned for one’s survival.

But let’s deconstruct one of these “micro-aggressions.” Let us deconstruct SWB… Shopping while black.

This “micro-aggression” asserts that upon entering a store a black person is instantly eagle-eyed by the “racist” white clerk. IN FACT, if there is indeed instant eye contact between black shopper and white “racist” upon entry in said store, IT MUST BE AT THE INITIATION of the black shopper. One CANNOT lock eyes with another AND CLAIM that the other person was eye-balling said black person, FIRST. It is impossible to make such a claim. The best that can be said is that each pair of eyes locked at the same time.

In short, this “micro-aggression” can be entirely fabricated and rests on nothing but the subjectiveness of the “aggrieved.”

After watching these “Shit White Girls Say to _______ Girls” videos, it has come to my conclusion that the only reason a non-White person puts up with White people is for STATUS. I’m guilty of seeing photos of a “token Black” and assuming they are highly educated or well-off, because why else would they be surround by White people (who are not trailer trash)? A “token” must be really special, right? I even told a friend I wish I had some White friends. STATUS, enough said.

Then I hear all these people give countless stories of ignorance from their White friends and I want to say, “Shut up…YOU chose to hang out with White people!” And they will continue to do so. Because they enjoy being the “token Black.” If they are surrounded by other Blacks, they won’t stand out. They NEED their White friends so other Whites will feel SAFE around them.

I always hung out with Black females. I don’t hang out with guys or other races, but I have dated other races (even a woman, but she was Black, that’s off topic). I do feel a certain air around other races, I know racism still exists, even if I haven’t been called a “nigger” or anything blatant like that. So, to hear from Black people who were always surrounded by Whites, how ignorant their friends are, its just disturbing cause it fruther proves this ignorance is real.

Also, let’s not forget the prejudence within the Black race. I DO have to cross the street if I see a group of young, Black men, because one of them will grab me; and no, I was NOT dressed like a hooker. But that’s what I get living in a working class neighborhood. I assume educated, wealthy Black men wouldn’t act that way, but then again how would I know? Assholes come in all colors, shapes, incomes and education levels.

Wow, just had a conversation about microaggressions with a non-POC the other day. Of course I was told I was being too sensitive, but I assured him he wasn’t being sensitive enough. I even spoke of the significant health disparities specifically btw ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ even of the same ‘middle-class/upper-class’ socioeconomic background (I was a research assistant in graduate school so I had to comb through many ‘health disparities’ papers). Did this tidbit of info birth into this acquaintance a pause for deep thinking- NO. For in fact, if the aggression is not an obvious violent affront to one’s being, many non-POC just don’t get it.

Just an example from work: On Friday, I wished everyone a Happy Dr.MLK day which was returned with smug laughter, side-eyes, and rolling eyes…(I am the only black person in my office). One woman felt the need to come over to my desk, stare me in the eyes and say, “everyone around here knows I’m not PC [politcally correct]”. WTF??? To this I replied, “Thanks for telling me”. Yup, just another day at work. smdh..UGH!!!!!

“I think whites know what they are doing in SOME cases, but I am not prepared to say they know in MOST cases.”

I used to believe that too.
No more.

Whites are more cunning than we give them credit for.
As we progress, they find new and inventive ways to plan our demise.
That wide- eyed, trembling- voiced, “please do not blame me…I didn’t know” shite has been over played so much, I know the lyrics by heart.

When you get on to an elevator and the white fears what you may do… it’s on purpose.
When you go into a store and are followed…it’s on purpose.
When you are in a meeting and your ideas are passed over or simply not heard…it’s on purpose.
When you try to tell them about a ” situation ” that hurt you and it’s waved off as you being overly sensitive…it’s on purpose.

The beautiful thing about whites is knowing that most actions and plans that they make are made with us in mind.

@Thordaddy
Indeed, many “micro-aggressive” acts are SURVIVAL INSTINCTS. To be generally suspicious of “blacks” as a “white person” is to be utterly concerned for one’s survival.

Survival instincts…really??….What sort of “survival instincts” have been ingrained in blacks–after 400 years of oppression–exist/have the ability to negatively impact a white person on a daily basis? I’m not sure about this. I’m not sure that micro-aggressions are merely responses to valid suspicions or instances of black-on-white crime. And even if they were, I still don’t believe that legitimizes micro-aggressions. I should be considered as an individual when I am in any setting regardless of what X or Y black person does or what someone THINKS they did.

With that logic, you could honestly call black-on-white crime a “survival instinct”. Blacks may be stereotyped as criminals now, but not too long ago there were stereotypes as the docile and harmless ones some could leave to raise their children. If we are assuming that these stereotypes hold truth, as you seem to be doing when you legitimize these micro-aggressions as results of valid suspicions, then one can reasonably conclude that black-on-white crime is caused by a “survival instinct” developed after 400 years of oppression–slavery, lynch mobs, rape…etc.

When you are in a meeting and your ideas are passed over or simply not heard…it’s on purpose.

Spot on…Wow…I love this one. Especially when it’s not just passed over, but repeated 30 minutes later and praised as if the knowledge was sent down from Jesus himself. And don’t even mention that you said it earlier, because you would then be the de facto you know what of the group.

Dr. Chester M. Pierce, a professor of psychiatry at the Harvard University School of Medicine, calls racism an abuse of human rights which is identical to, supplementary to and complementary to torture and terrorism and should, therefore, be given the same international attention.

The common thread between racism, torture and terrorism is that all three require the victim to be dehumanized and degraded.
In any effective and efficient submission-dominance system, it is critical for the oppressor to control the perception of the victim. The oppressed must stay preoccupied with their overall inferiority and the uselessness of their puny efforts in resisting the demands of the victimizer. One is victimized in proportion to the quantity of space, time, energy and mobility that one must yield (or has yielded) to the oppressor. Conversely, the more one regains or commands control of these elements, the less one is victimized.

These offensive mechanisms are designed to operationally keep Blacks in the inferior, dependent, helpless role. The mechanisms are nonverbal and kinetic, and they are well suited to control the space, time, energy and mobility of an African-American, while also producing feelings of degradation.

An example of a microinsult occurs when a white person (who is ‘innocently’ operating under the stereotype that any African-American in a hotel must be a bellhop) asks a well-dressed African-American male waiting in the lobby to carry his luggage. An example of a microaggression is when a white person edges in front of an African-American at a sales counter, despite being the second to arrive. In both instances if the offended African-American shows ire, the perpetrators wonder why African-Americans are ‘so sensitive’.

If a white person were to read this blog, how would he not be justified in his wholesale suspicion of the “black collective?”

If he was a paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps.

To be generally suspicious of “blacks” as a “white person” is to be utterly concerned for one’s survival.

Or an escapee from a lunatic asylum.

But let’s deconstruct one of these “micro-aggressions.” Let us deconstruct SWB… Shopping while black.

Yes, lets! This could be fun!

IN FACT, if there is indeed instant eye contact between black shopper and white “racist” upon entry in said store, IT MUST BE AT THE INITIATION of the black shopper.

Really? Now I know you are insane. I have been approached countless time at the book store I frequented, for example, despite being a frequent shopper there. I am there to browse and perhaps buy some books. I do not go in and automatically make ‘eye contact’ with the sales person. In the meantime, there are dozens of white people browsing books and I don’t see them approaching them, they leave them alone. In effect, I don’t initiate anything. They come to me. Please explain that, on second thought, don’t bother.

One CANNOT lock eyes with another AND CLAIM that the other person was eye-balling said black person, FIRST.

You are right, someone has to initiate the eyeballing. How about when you are browsing and are approached many times without ‘eyeballing’ these sales people? How does one uninitiate eyeballing? Maybe I have eyeballs in the back of my head that I am unaware of, and I am initiating unintended eyeballing? These are profound questions! Discuss! Eyeballing sounds like a sport! Perhaps the sport fans can explain this? Take your clozapine.

If Chescaleigh had called the microaggressions racist on CNN – and they were by her own definition (which is also my definition pretty much) – she would have been demonized. Calling it “ignorance” is about as close as she could get on white television and still be heard and mostly understood. On the other hand, she is young and most of her friends are white, so she might in fact fully believe what she said.

Microaggressions, even those in her video, are dehumanizing and therefore racist. In effect if not in intent. For it NOT to be racist her white friends would have see fellow whites as:

– All looking alike
– All knowing each other
– Disrespect each other’s personal space
– See their white friends not as individuals but as some kind of cartoonish, racist stereotype
– Say stuff like, “He’s cute for a white guy”

If they do not do that to each other, then why are they doing it to her? Someone they supposedly know AS AN INDIVIDUAL, which SHOULD easily override whatever they think they know about black people from television.

If they do not do that to each other, then why are they doing it to her?

That was a point that I wanted to make. White people restrict their racial microaggressions to non-White people and that is a conscious, purposeful choice. It’s only a matter then of them conceiving such as ‘racist.’

I feel like they do and merely use their (friendly) microaggressions to ‘test’ the consciousness (or closeness) of their friends.

Interestingly, I am re-reading Marilyn Frye, a White feminist, and she discusses the whole door holding contention. It’s not the best example, at least as she writes it, but she mentions how even infirm men would hold doors for women, drawing implications thereon.

My point in evoking her example is not to justify it, but to put into perspective that holding doors has become a gesture which women openly protest; and men, consciously hold doors, knowing that women may possibly protest the gesture.

I am the last person to conflate the women’s and African’s movement and issues, but this is an easy analogy. Can we dismiss the European as ignorant, or should we confess that Europeans are by the by racists and aspirant to express as much?

This “micro-aggression” asserts that upon entering a store a black person is instantly eagle-eyed by the “racist” white clerk. IN FACT, if there is indeed instant eye contact between black shopper and white “racist” upon entry in said store, IT MUST BE AT THE INITIATION of the black shopper. One CANNOT lock eyes with another AND CLAIM that the other person was eye-balling said black person, FIRST. It is impossible to make such a claim. The best that can be said is that each pair of eyes locked at the same time.

Though you should be ignored, at least I should inform you of this. A realistic SWB experience involves being followed around a store or noticing a heightened level of alert among store owners.

That is to say, it dawns on the Black shopper that they are being watched much, rather than there being a simultaneous discovery.

There are videos on youtube showing the SWB experience. If I remember correctly, some even have White thieves who, due to the distraction of the store owner by the Black shopper, masterfully slip away articles. Abagond’s link of the assassination of a President more exemplifies the one-sided watching.

But it’s good that you’re using a reasoning process. It’s better to ask questions first so as not to waste precious resources on false theory.

Thordaddy wrote: “One CANNOT lock eyes with another AND CLAIM that the other person was eye-balling said black person, FIRST.”

~~~

Yes, one most certainly can claim it.

I’m sure you, and most other people for that matter, have been in the situation where you get an intense feeling you are being watched; you then turn and lock eyes with the very person who was staring you down the whole time.

After watching these “Shit White Girls Say to _______ Girls” videos, it has come to my conclusion that the only reason a non-White person puts up with White people is for STATUS. I’m guilty of seeing photos of a “token Black” and assuming they are highly educated or well-off, because why else would they be surround by White people (who are not trailer trash)? A “token” must be really special, right? I even told a friend I wish I had some White friends. STATUS, enough said.

It may also be an internalization of a hatred of African people, which isn’t necessarily different. It’s worth noting that on average African people in America watch the same television that European people do; but it’s not the same in reverse. So, we watch American Idol and CNN’s News, but we also watch “The Game” and “Reed Between the Lines” (White people are saying “WHAT?”) [By the way, this is an example–the official study was done years ago with different shows]

However, both varieties of television are propaganda. Importantly, however, the European’s television is propaganda against Africans; so Africans watch propaganda against themselves. Worse, their television programs facilitate the self-hatred in a different manner. All stated, the “identity” of African people in America is defined by Europeans who forge a sort of binary, which makes self-hatred a matter of either distancing oneself from Blacks or fragmenting oneself among Blacks (IMPORTANT!).

From this lens of self-hate, we can understand the complaint of those against White women. So often their quibble with White women is that White women recognize that they are Black, something these Black women wish to forget (“I’m an individual.”) That is, some would complain that Black is not treated with respect, but others would complain that they ‘individually’ are treated as Black. This latter group is one with whom one ought not sympathize. Think of Henry Louis Gates. 🙂

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind – situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found “difficult” or unpleasant to work with, which is enough to cost one one’s livelihood; at worst, being seen as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating, and murder. One can only choose to risk one’s preferred form and rate of annihilation.

She mainly speaks for White women, but there’s a relevance here in the testimonies of African people. How we respond to microaggressions leads to our being thrown back amongst the “waste pile” (according to Europeans and their African friends) that is our race. hipster4hire mentions “status” as the motivation for docility with Europeans. I reason, in the above post, the relation between “status” and a distancing from African people.

You display a real lack of knowledge about how America really works. While you are thoroughly convinced of America’s “racist” ways, it is a fact that America, including many blacks, is radically liberated.

When you fail to distinguish between good and bad “micro-aggressions” then you show
yourself to be less than realistic about the world around you.

Further, the implication of SWB is that blacks “collectively” are above suspicion. In reality, as this blog clearly indicates, there are no objective reasons to trust blacks collectively AS A WHITE PERSON.

You start with the hilarious notion that you deserve equal deference as anyone else. You deserve nothing in a radically liberated America. Abagond is UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF that blacks in America ENJOY a radical amount of freedom.

This blog is the hard evidence.

Now, maybe not all blacks enjoy the radical autonomy enjoyed by Abagond, but who is REALLY taking that away?

The evil white man or the old, stagnated preacher of retro-black liberationism?

A single microaggression is like a papercut, so lots of people brush it off and ask `What’s the big deal?’ They forget that many of us experience these more than just once in a blue moon. Often there are hundreds and they happen every day for our entire lives. One papercut isn’t so bad, but thousands all over your body? Ouch.

It is because of this kind of stuff that many whites feel like they are walking on eggshells when it comes to blacks. It is like no matter what they say or do it will be seen as racist!

This part stood out to me. For we people of colour, being around White people is like constantly walking on eggshells already. Yet you’re constantly getting papercuts from them and sometimes even a punch straight in the face. However, you can’t bring up their ignorance or racism because many White people are so sensitive that if you even say `Your comment was a little ignorant’ they will freak out and claim you accused them of being a racist! (Hence, the `walking on eggshells’. Or is it more like a minefield?) Sometimes it is even difficult to bring up race at all without everyone getting uncomfortable, defensive and then aggressively stating you’re too PC or oversensitive for mentioning it at all. Even though we are faced with our race day in, day out, it seems many White people would rather avoid discussing the topic entirely and never see their own race or how it shapes them.

Maybe if blacks didn’t commit over half the violent crime in this country despite making up about 15% of the population people of all colors wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable around you. Oh, that’s right, only whites feel uncomfortable around Jenarvis and Markishia, the Asians love you guys, lol.

You’re too steeped in jargon. Write less technically. I’m not interested in these terminologies.

You seem to take a fancy to the word “radical.” It’s not clear as to why.

As to Blacks being suspicious–not so. Anyone can point out to you how rarely Blacks shoot up schools compared against Whites. But it’s Black people who are going through metal detectors.

Or separately, how Black ‘strangers’ are feared as rapists when rapes are typically done by White ‘familiars.’

Truly, Black people need not be suspicious. It’s only that White propaganda makes them seemingly suspicious that Europeans are suspicious; but it’s unreasonable. Objectively, White people should be more feared than Black people. It’s only that as a group, definitions differ for Whites, where Blacks are defined as “to be feared” despite the reality otherwise.

For instance, which Black hero used violence as a means to economic gain? Now which White hero? Rhodes, Washington, Bush, Jefferson, . . ..

There is another kind of SWB experience that I have witnessed many, many times over the years. Just as being watched and followed are examples of hypervisibility, being purposefully ignored (yes purposefully) is an example of INvisibility. I have seen white sales people and clerks walk right past black shoppers to ask white ones if they need help with anything, or they will greet the white shopper with a ‘Hi!” at the check-out and then say, “Have a great day!” as the white shopper leaves. When a black shopper approaches right after, there is no ‘Hi!’ or ‘Have a great day!’ As a matter of fact, some will act as though they don’t want to wait on the black shopper. These are subtle, yet blatant acts. And yes, I believe these acts of invisibility are often intentional. Too sensitive, am I? Have a chip on my shoulder, do I? I doubt it. In an attempt to be fair, I look for patterns. It’s a type of reality testing, which is a good thing. When things happen over and over again, over a period of years, and in different settings, it tells me something. Do these invisible acts happen everytime? No, but they happen often enough.

I can’t cater my “jargon” to your preference. In the American context, I am using “progressive” terms.

It is as though this “debate” didn’t boil down to who gets more “freedom.” Equality is a ruse. You are certainly not seeking it in regards to me and so there is no absolute belief.

If a white person uses “racism” as a means to maximize his autonomy then this IS ENTIRELY RATIONAL. Likewise, a black person may use “racism” to maximize his autonomy in relation to a proximate white oppressor or in relation to less liberated blacks.

To suggest that blacks should enjoy a blanket collective trust from the “white man” is a non-starter.

Again, you have not provided sufficient evidence that the “micro-aggressions” towards blacks are anything but the rational acts of a white liberal.

You are perfectly able to cater your “jargon,” it’s a matter of whether you have convinced yourself whether you want to. However, you must ask yourself what your goal in this “conversation” is. If it is that you want another to understand you, then you should communicate in an understandable way. Perhaps, you are talking at me and not with me, so you don’t care whether I understand or not? That’s understandable. But if this is the case, why address me in the second person and not the third person?

As to this ‘debate,’ you’re not really directing your comments at me. You seem to be talking with Abagond. I, personally, do not weigh in on microaggressions in the least. In fact, I would not be surprised if, under all of your jargon, you and I agreed.

For instance, I write that the European uses microaggressions as a means of testing African people, [I’ll add for you] possibly for partnerships over other African people (a means of survival.) That stated, the thesis that Europeans are rational racists mixes with yours perfectly. No?

So to speak, just because I pointed out to you that SWB isn’t as you imagined, it doesn’t mean that we’re “debating” over every issue on the planet. If you check the record, I raised an early contention against Abagond’s position and it’s an ongoing debate. That is–I afforded Europeans a rationale. In that, you’re expression of a rationale (survival) is welcome and well-received.

Your issue is that you are too jargon-filled, that you actually use words in the wrong manner. For instance, you write “rational acts” but that can have a multitude of meanings. If you were specific, we could understand you. For instance, “fearing Blacks” is irrational in reality, but ‘rational’ in false statistics–which itself is irrational.

@Abagond This is really a side note, but I have to mention it. Abagond, are you planning to write about the republican race or the election in general. I guess we’ve become so desensitized to blatant racism coming from republicans that we don’t say much about it. But, I have a feeling that the mainstream media–even the “liberal” HuffPost and NYTimes–aren’t extensively reporting it because they don’t feel that “this racial stuff” is a legitimate issue.

I’m just thinking of it right now because I am watching the republican debates……And believe it or not, one moderator, a black republican man, Juan Williams, is really asking the tough questions, specifically to Gingrich. Gingrich calling Obama a “food-stamp president”, suggesting that black and poor kids work as janitors to learn work ethic, and that blacks “demand paychecks and not welfare checks” were just some of the comments he asked about. When asked almost directly about the racist implications of his remarks, he answered simply, “No” and was given a standing ovation by the crowd. Juan Williams also brought up the DREAM act and immigration reform. In introducing a question to Romney, he said, ” Your father was born in Mexico…..” and he is then unbelievably (?) interrupted by boos from the crowd.

Those are just a few examples of the more blatant racism in this campaign, not necessarily confined to the candidates. It’s just amazing to me that media has allowed a person to continue that professed Obama exhibits “kenyan anti-colonialism behavior” even before his entry into the race. It amazes me that someone can say “I don’t want to take money away from hard-working people and give it to black people” on atleast two occasions (one of which when asked about foreign policy); then say he meant “blah” and not black people;and, then get away with it.

Although minorities, particularly AA, are obviously not lining in droves to vote in the republican primaries–partially due to the fact that they are not courted–they need to know what is going on in that race. Obama does not have this race in “the bag”. This race is not going to depend on mere support..it is going to depend on turnout. The fact that the mainstream media is giving little time towards issues that matter to minorities–like whether their potential president views them as inherently inferior beings–could have the potential of keeping voter turnout lower than the level it should be among these groups, considering the implications of their election.

I’m sure that this sort of stuff probably does turn to a taxing writing task after a while, but I think it would be really great if you would comment or follow developments closely as the election season goes on.

The irony is that I grant you more intelligence than you are willing to display while you simultaneously attempt to bait me with your feigned “lack of understanding” of my technical jargon.

If one is to know ANYTHING about the American black man it is that he has had the escape from 400 years of “white supremacy” thoroughly ingrained into his psyche. A “black American” with no sense of freeing himself from “white supremacy” IS NOT A REAL black American.

To be oblivious to this fact is as stark as saying that the American black man simply does not exist.

In fact, this is the fundamental stance of the TRUE “black” liberationist AT THE NEAR END of the logical progression of his beliefs.

In short, the American black man is so liberated that he really doesn’t exist anymore as a PARTICULAR ENTITY distinct from other “blacks” suffering under “white supremacy.”

AS IN THERE IS NO UNIQUE American black man’s experience of “white supremacy.”

But in reality, all blacks the world over now SHARE the collective American black man’s UNIQUELY American experience with “white supremacy.”

In short, as black man has “liberated,” he has equally expanded the web of “white supremacy.”

It’s like the more “free” that black man becomes the more “white supremacy” that exists.

As I suspected, you are not the best writer (no offense–the best writers have written how writing is not taught). The matter is not my intelligence, but your writing ability. Nevertheless, it’s apparent that your style emulates ‘speaking;’ (a respectable though wrong philosophy) therefore when one reads your writing aloud, your writings become clearer.

To wit, however, I had to look up “liberationist,” for though it is self-explanatory, it’s not a part of the vocabulary which I use.

All said, I agree with you. The world and I call Europeans “Occidentals,” and their ways “Occidentalism,” and I, uniquely, call Africans “Originals” and their ways “Originalism.” In this, I note a difference of ways between Europeans and Africans, a fundamental thesis of my own. All said, I recognize the xenophobia of Occidentals and note it as fundamental (possibly intrinsic).

Thus, we have one voice in claiming it silly to whine of increased “White Supremacy” in the face of increased contact with Whites. You have no quibble with me.

In fact, I respect the openly White racist (though I’d avoid an armed one in person), if I may call you that; for I find that type to be the window to understanding “Occidentalism” (the ways of White folk, if you will.) For instance, I understand Whites to be Xenophobic, but I wonder whether Xenophobia is intrinsic in White people. Your take?

“It is just plain silly to advocate radical liberation and a diversified society in a traditionally white country”.

The country was never “white traditionally”. The state was founded by some white dudes way back, you know, the US of A. But the country, the land, belonged to someone else. And they have always been there, even if they were pushed aside and almost, almost wiped out. And there were blacks from the get go, and had been for a centry and a half at least, when those white dudes drafted their declaration of independence and constitution for the 13 colonies.

And for some strange reason, this new state which called for the equality and freedom for ALL men, forgot that those natives and blacks were also men, humanbeings. They just were there, sort of, among the whites, as their neighbours, slaves etc.but most of all, enemies. Huge mistake.

So the USA has always been a diversified society. It has always been multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural, There has never been a white society in USA, despite the myth and propaganda. Not ever. That is an historical absolute fact.

As for radical liberation, you think that George Washington, John Adams and those white heros were not radicals? You think that they were not for “radical liberation”? I think they were and indeed were. After all, they started a revolution, so they were genuine revolutionists. But I guess you, as a man who is against radicals and liberation, would have sided with king George and Great Britain in that question.

The matter was never your intelligence, but your unwillingness to recognize the effect of black liberationism on the ultimate health and wellness of the black collective.

If you grant me that the single defining characteristic of the American black man is his struggle against “white supremacy” then you imply that with the destruction of “white supremacy” comes the destruction of any particular and concrete notion of the American black man. And because the idea of the “black man” being under the thumb of “white supremacy” has gone global and been co-opted as an alliance of PoC against “white supremacy,” the same dilemma applies to all PoC who join this alliance.

Radical liberation for the black man EQUALS self-annihilation (spiritual, intellectual and then physical) of said black man.

You fail to see this connection.

So again, the inability to distinguish between good white “micro-aggression” and bad white “micro-aggression” seems nothing more than an attempt to effectively paralyze white people in their every interaction with blacks.

What name do you give to this phenomenon of failing to make commonsense distinctions?

Further, the implication of SWB is that blacks “collectively” are above suspicion. In reality, as this blog clearly indicates, there are no objective reasons to trust blacks collectively AS A WHITE PERSON.
You start with the hilarious notion that you deserve equal deference as anyone else. You deserve nothing in a radically liberated America

This has to be the realest thing I’ve yet read on this forum. Why should I put someone else’s interests over my own? Only in certain situations (Prisoner’s dilemma, Tragedy of the commons) (1) would this make sense. But for other situations, it would be not only irrational, but immoral for a white person to put the interests of black people, who he doesn’t even know, over that of his friends, his family’s or his own.

It is as though this “debate” didn’t boil down to who gets more “freedom.” Equality is a ruse. You are certainly not seeking it in regards to me and so there is no absolute belief.

Hehehehehe. I don’t think they are either. Everyone wants to be more powerful, though they don’t want to admit. This is especially true regarding black Americans, who, like many of their white counterparts, are trapped by he constraints of slave morality.

To suggest that blacks should enjoy a blanket collective trust from the “white man” is a non-starter.

More realness.

I can’t cater my “jargon” to your preference.

I wouldn’t respect you if you did.

In the American context, I am using “progressive” terms.

You sound more like an existentialist to me. That’s alright. I suspect that we will get along just fine.

In short, the American black man is so liberated that he really doesn’t exist anymore as a PARTICULAR ENTITY distinct from other “blacks” suffering under “white supremacy.”

AS IN THERE IS NO UNIQUE American black man’s experience of “white supremacy.”

But in reality, all blacks the world over now SHARE the collective American black man’s UNIQUELY American experience with “white supremacy.”

In short, as black man has “liberated,” he has equally expanded the web of “white supremacy.”…..

It’s like the more “free” that black man becomes the more “white supremacy” that exists.

Hmm. The black man. Condemned to be free.

(1) Any basic introduction to Game Theory
(2)On the Genealogy of Morals – Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh please. There is no such thing as good white “micro-aggression”. White people have had no reason to unconsciously fear blacks, and yet they’ve taken every opportunity to lash at them, scapegoat them, and hurt them even if it means it sets other white people back along with them. I hang out with white people all the time, and even I can see that is a problem. In fact, many of them (while committing plenty of these “micro-aggressions” are willing to apologize and admit it is a problem too). Why is it so hard to just not stare down a black person if they’re trying to shop? Why is it so hard to not throw a hidden insult disguised as a “compliment”? why is it so hard to just see them as a person and not a color? White people are afforded that level of individuality, so why shouldn’t they be adults about it and act that way to others? They’re not children, they are perfectly capable of choosing what to say, how to say it, and seeing if it hurts someone. It’s childish to assume you can be a brat and then expect the other person to pat you on the head and say “you didn’t know, it’s okay”.

If someone feels “paralyzed” by having to, I don’t know, talk to a black person like they would a white person, they have the hang up, not the black person. How hard is that to understand?

I just noticed the Francesca – Anderson Cooper video posted by OnitaSet.

I think that Francesca did a wonderful job of explaining herself. I think that the annoying white people in the audience needed to stop and actually reflect on what was being said instead of having their typical knee-jerk reactions: “How can you group all white people together! This would be SO different if a white person said it” or “This isn’t an academic video …”

Oh wow. Instead of personalizing her video, think of it as an ACADEMIC statement (more academic than most news/journal articles these days in my opinion). She is putting forward ideas that, SHOCKINGLY, most of the other black audience members can relate to.

“Why is it so hard to not throw a hidden insult disguised as a “compliment”?

—
As for throwing insults disguised as compliments, it is quite a skill. Women have it down to a science. It reminds me of saccharine. The sweetness is quickly followed by the unpleasant aftertaste.

***

@KEmiri: I guess we’ve become so desensitized to blatant racism coming from republicans that we don’t say much about it.

—
I hate I missed the S.C. debate last night. I’ve heard so many racist things from Republican politicians and candidates, especially during this election. I wonder why? I’ve also noticed that many Republican talking heads and politicians are condoning that incident involving American soldiers and Afghan corpses. Yes, there are many Democratic racists, but I think Republican politicians and candidates take the cake. I’ve also noticed during debates that hateful comments that involve “othering” people often draw the most applause.

So Newtie made more “food stamp” and “welfare check” references during the debate while mentioning African Americans in the same breath? I’m not surprised.

Fair. I subscribe to the belief that talk is cheap if it is not supported by actions.

I have made steps forward to disown whiteness. Several times actually.

I will continue to do so. I do believe this is one way to remove ignorance. I also believe that the guidelines need to be set by those whose grievance is greatest. I believe that Chescaleigh has done that most recently. I believe that more PoC need to follow suit. Those white advocates for social justice need to know all of the nefarious forms in which whiteness comes in, many of which we ourselves are ignorant of because we don’t experience them. This is where people like Abagond/Chescaleigh come in.

Because being asked to touch our hair; talked to like we know all other black people etc. is not part of our daily experience. Thus i think she did a very helpful job with this video for people of colour and people not of colour. I would encourage more people to do the same so we can provide more support for this effort.

Lol @ JT…you used a capital “I” throughout your paragraph, but used a lower cased “i” in your statement, “Honestly, i hate being white.” Interesting…

@Onitaset, good point, SURVIVAL. I don’t want to go out on a limb and make assumptions, but would Sammy Davis, Jr. be an example of the survival tactic?

I understand I’m not walking in Franchesca’s shoes, and though her video creates a helpful dialogue for some Black or other non-White women, I kinda feel like saying a sarcastic, “Aww, boo hoo.” She can now thank her White friends for getting her interviewed on Anderson Cooper.

When the lady in the audience who confessed to her weave wearing, Franchesca almost looked like she was smirking at her, or maybe I imagined that since I’m not an optimist, lol. I am also natural but I do not have dreads and occasionally wear wigs – so I’m a medium of Franchesca and the woman in the audience. There are times where “natural” women will look at “non-naturals” with disdain and vice-versa. It is sad that the woman was afraid of coming off as an “angry Black woman” with her own friends. I’m gonna assume she’s a “token”, cuase why would anyone make her the mascot of all things Black? It must be an unspoken rule, “only one Black person per crew.”

” Why is it so hard to just not stare down a black person if they’re trying to shop? Why is it so hard to not throw a hidden insult disguised as a “compliment”? why is it so hard to just see them as a person and not a color? White people are afforded that level of individuality, so why shouldn’t they be adults about it and act that way to others? They’re not children, they are perfectly capable of choosing what to say, how to say it, and seeing if it hurts someone.”

If I may…
I’ve been thinking about this very question for the latter part of my life.
The reason I came up with is privilege.

When you are privileged, you don’t HAVE to act accordingly…
When you are privileged, you don’t HAVE to see anyone as an individual.
When you are privileged, the world revolves around you.

Whites in America, and perhaps ONLY in America, are so used to being the default, that there is a universal, singular mindset.

I’d rather deal with whites who are upfront with their racism, versus those who pretend to be otherwise. Some of the most racist whites that i’ve dealt with have been spanish, but, they have the nerve to talk s**t about white americans. White americans are not angels when it comes to racism, but, they’re not the worst of the bunch when it comes to white folk. Racism in spanish culture is 10x as bad. Blacks in latin-america can’t even identify themselves as black because they’ve been brainwashed to not see themselves as black. Those who say they love black people the most are the most racist, because, they have devious motives. Who’s done more damage to black folk on this planet…the bleeding heart liberal or the skinhead? It’s a simple question black people. The devil you know versus the devil you don’t know…Think About It!!!

Do you as a Black conservative have a problem with the racism your fellow conservatives openly express or do you agree with their suggestions and sentiments?

KEmiri

“Gingrich calling Obama a “food-stamp president”, suggesting that black and poor kids work as janitors to learn work ethic, and that blacks “demand paychecks and not welfare checks” were just some of the comments he asked about. When asked almost directly about the racist implications of his remarks, he answered simply, “No” and was given a standing ovation by the crowd.”

It’s just amazing to me that media has allowed a person to continue that professed Obama exhibits “kenyan anti-colonialism behavior” even before his entry into the race. It amazes me that someone can say “I don’t want to take money away from hard-working people and give it to black people” on atleast two occasions (one of which when asked about foreign policy); then say he meant “blah” and not black people;and, then get away with it.

The more you write, the more I’m convinced you have never met a black person. You appear to have more book learning than real world experience and that is where your problem stems. Your hypothesis about radical Black liberation is absurd and sounds more like introverted brainstorming rather than a real understanding of the problem. Yes, I do realize I’m attacking the man and not the argument, but to be completely honest, your argument is laughable.

“If you grant me that the single defining characteristic of the American black man is his struggle against “white supremacy” then you imply that with the destruction of “white supremacy” comes the destruction of any particular and concrete notion of the American black man. And because the idea of the “black man” being under the thumb of “white supremacy” has gone global and been co-opted as an alliance of PoC against “white supremacy,” the same dilemma applies to all PoC who join this alliance.

Radical liberation for the black man EQUALS self-annihilation (spiritual, intellectual and then physical) of said black man.

You fail to see this connection.”

So, basically what in essence you are saying is that without White people, Black people are lost because you believe that Black people’s ENTIRE existence rests upon a pseudo-culture that is ANTI-WHITE. Without these so-called White people, Black people would self-destruct because Blacks have no legitimate culture to speak of, yes? In other words, it’s that old spiteful argument: “Blacks couldn’t make it on their own without us!”

I will grant you this, there is an element of Black culture that is distinctly anti-White. However, the Black identity is not solely defined by this trait. Black people have a self-sustaining culture than can survive in autonomy, IF White people do not attempt to sabotage that stability out of fear. Black people have attempted to be successfully autonomous in the past and all one has to do is research Black Wallstreet to see the fear it caused in Whites.

“So again, the inability to distinguish between good white “micro-aggression” and bad white “micro-aggression” seems nothing more than an attempt to effectively paralyze white people in their every interaction with blacks. “

I don’t really think you know what the word aggression means. Perhaps your should look that up. Wait, I’ll do it for you:
“Aggression, in its broadest sense, is behavior, or a disposition towards behavior, that is forceful, hostile or attacking.”

There is no such thing as “good’ White micro-aggressions. They are at their very core hostile to Black people. You don’t get that?

“What name do you give to this phenomenon of failing to make commonsense distinctions?

“It may be me, but I do not think that a sane person can be loyal to a race.”

Yeah – the operative word here is “sane.”

Which is why, in part, blacks and other POC in the US often say that people who see themselves as “white” are somewhat delusional.. and why I say, WHITENESS is demonic, and why others say that whites have a crack/defect in their hearts/souls.

The IDEA/origin behind “white” extends well beyond skin color. White is supposed to be something glorious, wonderful, GOOD, the default, pristine, without blemish, pure… heh, even God is supposed to be white. lol

The problem is that the people that classify themselves as such are not even remotely close to being this idealized host of angelic beings, hence the insanity/delusion.

@ JT

“I have made steps forward to disown whiteness. Several times actually.

I will continue to do so. I do believe this is one way to remove ignorance.”

************************

This could be a life-long never ending process, unlearning all those uniquely “white” behaviors. : )) But since you (as well as some others here) are now on the road to recovery, you might as well stick with it for the long haul.

The website, Stuff White People Do is a (now archived) site filled with topics about white “tendencies” – that’s usually about things SOME white people do that’s not constructive. MaconD gets props for his unique, informative and valuable site!

I’d like to let you know about a book i came upon at the library. It deals with the microagression issue from an afro-cuban perspective. (Afro-Cuban Voices…On Race and Identity In Contemporary Cuba) by Pedro Perez Sarduy and Jean Stubbs (2000). The book was published by the University Press of Florida. Various afro-cubans on and off the island discuss the contradiction of race in cuban/spanish culture. It’s a great read for those who want know what real colorblind-racism is and how it affects afro-americans and afro-cubans alike.

Radical liberation HAS THE SAME EFFECT on all particular entities that adopt and embrace its values. But this is not to say that the races have adopted and embraced “radical liberation” equally. Again, this conclusion is an effect of your ideology.

THE AMERICAN BLACK MAN’S defining feature is his enduring desire to break “free” of “white supremacy.”

This is where YOU MUST ALWAYS START in these racial discussions.

And if you can’t rid the world of “white supremacy” then how does American black man break “free?”

If you grant me that the single defining characteristic of the American black man is his struggle against “white supremacy” then you imply that with the destruction of “white supremacy” comes the destruction of any particular and concrete notion of the American black man. And because the idea of the “black man” being under the thumb of “white supremacy” has gone global and been co-opted as an alliance of PoC against “white supremacy,” the same dilemma applies to all PoC who join this alliance.

You are quite respectable. But there needs be a correction given. We Africans have a saying known as “Sankofa” which roughly translates into “looking back to move forward.”

What you describe is the African man of America, who, like his European counterpart, has a four-hundred year history and nothing more.

This is the saddest aspect of American society. That American history is so short and anyone and everyone defined as “American” has a history grounded in slavery, either as master or enslaved.

As such, not counting for “Sankofa,” you would properly analyze the dilemma of the American; yet, the part of the “African liberator” is not to continue the White supremacy of historical revisionism but to correct the record and claim that the African has the oldest, longest and best history.

In this, the trouble of “White Supremacy” isn’t even the issue; rather the African simply looks to reclaiming his legacy.

Though I concede to you that this option is at present unrealistic. Historical revisionism keeps the African in America as perpetually enslaved.

I call it “radical autonomy.”

On a side note, would you mind defining this term? I read certain definitions but I am unsure whether you mean it the same as they.

When the commentators on here make no distinction between good white “micro-aggression” (as in aggression that dissuaded attack) versus bad white “micro-aggression” (define this in LIBERATED terms, please) then the game is up. The illusion of righteousness couldn’t be more obvious.

To fail to make this distinction IS TO SAY whites can NEVER BE AGGRESSIVE towards blacks for any reason.

Silly. Stupid. The stuff of self-annihilation. It’s the diabolical persuasion of whites to be wholly nondiscriminatory and totally tolerant. The surest path to self-annihilation. Radical liberalism, par excellence.

That’s not what the argument is, however. The argument is the statement you made about the consequences of this autonomy. I SERIOUSLY doubt your claims to the origins of this desire for “radical autonomy”, but that isn’t the real gripe I have. You claimed that the results would be catastraphic for Blacks and I see no evidence of this other than you making a statement out of spite. Now back your claim with proof.

Is white Supremacy, properly defined, a true obstacle to the “African” dedicated to reclaiming his true legacy?

I would say the pull of “radical autonomy” is far more of a threat. It’s truly internal. And it is wholly determined to constitute everything within you. Its values are littered all over the Western world. “American black man” is the exemplar. Nondiscrimination and tolerance. Unbridled violence and nauseating submission. This is the path to radical autonomy and an eventual spiritual, intellectual and biological death.

First off, if a Black man who wants to rob White man attacks him and the White man shoots the Black man dead, then that is a “good” aggression. Self-defense is a natural reaction. That’s not what this post is about, is it?

Let’s go back to the definition of micro-aggression:
Microaggressions are those small everyday acts and subtle indignities through which the privileged, often without knowing it, make the marginalized feel, well, marginalized.

If you want to make the argument that the definition can be beneficial for Whites and therefore be “good” in some sense. I can give you that. But then you would be embracing racism and that isn’t what the post or this entire blog is about.

I swear, your fetish for cryptic wording and aptitude for avoiding direct opposition is truly maddening.

I find it interesting – the behavior displayed by some of Abagond’s more regular trolls! These visitors seem so very settled in their comfort, pretending that they’re being facetious, witty and so very wise when the tone of their blather amounts to nothing more than sardonic, snide and unwarranted snark.

Where’s THEIR constructive contributions? Their time and energy wasting agendas could not be more clear!

I do hope that a bit of this site’s owner legendary patience for enduring BS might one day soon rub off on me.

It took all that arguing to make you reveal the TRUE intent of all your posts here, when you could have posted that from the beginning. But I guess if you did that, you wouldn’t make the argument to begin with.

I am using that he short version of argument is “what would happen if the Coyote caught the Roadrunner?”

In our case, what would happen if the black man overcame racism? He can’t , because ALL versions of blackness are based upon conflict against whites.

The Black conservative strives to show whites that he is as good as they are.
The Black liberal strives to be in a society where he is equal to whites.
The Black women strives to be considered as beautiful and as worthy as her white counterpart.
The Afrocentrist constructs elaborate mythologies so that he can say that he is superior to whites.
The Black criminal strives to be as rich and powerful as whites.

But nowhere do any of them strive for an objective that they themselves have created – for themselves. Therefore, their identity is based on a perpetual, never ending struggle, because it has reached a point where the Black man has totally defined himself as being in struggle against racism. He wouldn’t know what to do if racism ended.

Even countries like Brazil and Jamaica are caught up in believing that they are in perpetual struggle, in large part due to the American/ized media.

When overt aggression against blacks becomes less frequent, microaggressions, coincidentally, become in vogue. Even though they do not cause transfers of wealth and power from blacks, they must be focused on – anything that allows blacks to keep that definition of themselves being in struggle.

thordaddy, I think that this argument is moving outside the original topic. Join me in the Open Thread.

Is white Supremacy, properly defined, a true obstacle to the “African” dedicated to reclaiming his true legacy?

Yes.

I would say the pull of “radical autonomy” is far more of a threat. It’s truly internal. And it is wholly determined to constitute everything within you. Its values are littered all over the Western world. “American black man” is the exemplar. Nondiscrimination and tolerance. Unbridled violence and nauseating submission. This is the path to radical autonomy and an eventual spiritual, intellectual and biological death.

I am still unsure of your terminology. Do you mean “individualism?” “Individualism” is a European concept that does mean self-destruction for both Europeans and Africans alike.

Every man want to act like he’s exempt
When him need to get down on his knees and repent
Can’t slick talk on the day of judgement
Your movement similar to a serpent
Tried to play straight, how your whole style bent?
Consequence is no coincidence
Hypocrites always want to play innocent
Always want to take it to the full out extent
Always want to make it seem like good intent
Never want to face it when it’s time for punishment
I know that you don’t wanna hear my opinion
But there come many paths and you must choose one
And if you don’t change then the rain soon come
See you might win some but you just lost one

You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one

Now don’t you understand man universal law
What you throw out comes back to you, star
Never underestimate those who you scar
Cause karma, karma, karma comes back to you hard
You can’t hold God’s people back that long
The chain of Shaitan wasn’t made that strong
Trying to pretend like your word is your bond
But until you do right, all you do will go wrong
Now some might mistake this for just a simple song
And some don’t know what they have ’til it’s gone
Now even when you’re gone you can still be reborn
And, from the night can arrive the sweet dawn
Now, some might listen and some might shun
And some may think that they’ve reached perfection
If you look closely you’ll see what you’ve become
Cause you might win some but you just lost one

You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one
You might win some but you just lost one…

But it is the constant rain of microaggressions day after day and month after month and year after year that wears away at one’s spirit. It can even affect your physical health. And the most dangerous microaggressions by far are those you do not see as microaggressions.

This is very, very true. This is also why my job has become a pointless, fruitless, dead-ender: my supervisor does this shit to me EVERY FUCKING DAY. Case in point: I have never, EVER had a supervisor who would ONLY talk to me via email, but this bitch does this literally EVERY. FUCKING. DAY!!!!! I repeated myself just in case people don’t understand. She sits directly behind me at work (fortunately, on the other side of a wall) so I can hear her talking with others, laughing and joking, and passing along idle gossip. I will hear her pick up the phone and talk to someone, but she can’t / won’t do this for me. She won’t even poke her head around the corner to ask me to do something; no, she has to send a snide, snotty email with her little ‘chairman Mao’ directives. Micromanaging with a healthy dose of microaggression – charming, no? Makes the workplace oh-so cheery and delightful!! Especially when she covers the arseholes of her ‘clique’ – her BFFs can skate!

She has been my supervisor for a year and a half now, and I have saved each little email directive of hers. Basically, I get 10 emails per day from her. Multiply that by the number of weeks in a year, subtract the holidays, and that will be the (low) average number of emails I’ve gotten from this wench. Helen Keller would have been able to pick up on this hostility!

“I have never, EVER had a supervisor who would ONLY talk to me via email…”
—

A microaggression and also possibly a trap. A way to trap you in your words because it creates a paper trail when you respond to her…or when you don’t. I could understand a little more if this woman was on a different floor or in a different office, but on the other side of the wall? Her mode of communication sounds more like a form of harrassment, if anything. Passive agressive harrassment. Be careful.

If I may…
I’ve been thinking about this very question for the latter part of my life.
The reason I came up with is privilege.

When you are privileged, you don’t HAVE to act accordingly…
When you are privileged, you don’t HAVE to see anyone as an individual.
When you are privileged, the world revolves around you.

Whites in America, and perhaps ONLY in America, are so used to being the default, that there is a universal, singular mindset.

It’s always about me.

Understand that, my friend, and the rest will become clear.

laromana says,
EXCELLENT comments, Truthbetold! You took the words out of my mouth.

ANTI-BLACK microagressions/microinsults are OBVIOUS examples/evidence of the REALITY of White privilege.

The fact that WP who engage in ANTI-BLACK microagression/microinsults REFUSE to admit the simple FACT that IT’S WRONG for them to treat BP DIFFERENTLY/WORSE than they do WP demonstrates their utter HYPOCRISY.

Again, you have not provided sufficient evidence that the “micro-aggressions” towards blacks are anything but the rational acts of a white liberal.

You’ve provided nothing but extistential babblings!

However, you must ask yourself what your goal in this “conversation” is.

How can you ask such a question when he himself doesn’t know?

What name do you give to this phenomenon of failing to make commonsense distinctions?

Incoherent babblings!

Most whites who are quick to disprove or rationalize racism have never been in the company of people of colour.

Bingo! If they were, it may dispel their notions of superiority. They are afraid of this.

Get hip homey… You don’t know Abagond like I do.

Are you his father. hence your moniker?

It’s the diabolical persuasion of whites to be wholly nondiscriminatory and totally tolerant. The surest path to self-annihilation. Radical liberalism, par excellence.

Crack out the tin-hats!

Do you even know what you are arguing?

Probably not, he is to autonomous !

I swear, your fetish for cryptic wording and aptitude for avoiding direct opposition is truly maddening.

Everyone needs a hobby. His is writing incoherent ramblings on a blog.

@sepultura:

Micromanaging is usually a sign of discrimination and harassment. Keep all the emails, document her behaviour, grin in the heifer’s face should you meet occasionally, and bide your time. She is a beeyotch and will soon mess up. When she does be ready to pounce!

sepultura13 says,
She has been my supervisor for a year and a half now, and I have saved each little email directive of hers. Basically, I get 10 emails per day from her. Multiply that by the number of weeks in a year, subtract the holidays, and that will be the (low) average number of emails I’ve gotten from this wench. Helen Keller would have been able to pick up on this hostility!

laromana says,
sepultura13, I’m so sorry you’re being subjected to this brand of ANTI-BLACK RACE HATE BS. I hope you’re able to move to a different/better job environment soon.

Just going through the comments and I wanted to make a few points about perceived white behavior from a white persons perspective, I’m not specifically trying to discount anyone’s experiences just offering the view from the other side.

A few people here seem to think WP spend time talking about blacks as a group behind their backs. I can remember maybe 3 or 4 instances of this in my thirty-something years as a white person. So yeah it does happen but it’s pretty rare honestly even with coded references and when it does happen it’s usually not super offensive. Overt racism is a faux pa even when it’s just WP around

Another thing is whites getting quiet when a black person enters the room. I’m my experience this does happen and I admit i have been guilty of this myself in cases where I don’t actually know the black person well. If I don’t know a black person well and they aren’t very outgoing with me I will usually be more self-conscious than I would be with a random white person. I always just assume the black person is thinking I’m ” corny, lame, wierd” or something because of the cultural differences so I get quiet. Like they won’t appreciate my sense of humor and stuff like that. Thats still racist I suppose but it’s not like malicious.
just thought I’d put that out there.

So, from your perspective, when whites are being microaggressive, like in the examples in the post or the Chescaleigh video, do they know they are being racist and belittling? What is going on that they act that way?

I don’t get the sense that you have a learned aversion to an objective notion of Supremacy. Your talk of a fantastic African legacy and your quoting of certain Lauryn Hill lyrics calling for repentance suggests an affinity for things great than yourself.

In America though, by and large, blacks (and a large swath of whites) are what we call “equalitists.” These “equalitists” have an affinity for things “equal” to each other. He is one who believes in egalitarianism. But in fact, he is a learned anti-Supremacist. He has an aversion to things greater than him and he never seeks to be greater than others. He thinks this is a harmonious state. For instance, he may have an aversion to a glorious legacy because such a legacy may hurt the feelings of others with a less glorious legacy just as the more glorious legacy of others has hurt his feelings. But there is no harmony in anti-Supremacy. There is only self-annihilation through the consistent application ONLY THOSE HIGHEST VALUES that can make us truly “equal.” Those HIGHEST LIBERAL values are nondiscrimination and tolerance.

So when you state that white Supremacy, PROPERLY-defined, is an “obstacle” to blacks reclaiming their glorious past, WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE OBSTACLE???

The white part or the Supremacy part?

And what is the solution when separationism is, inexplicably, off the table?

And how does this tie into “micro-aggressive” acts?

Well, these rhetorical devices are in actuality mechanisms used to increase the autonomy of the black person WITHOUT having to separate from whites.

When one speaks of a four hundred year desire to break “free” from “white supremacy” AND IT DOESN’T include separating from whites then we witness the pursuit of a RADICAL autonomy.

A radical autonomy is the freedom to act without consequence. It is quite addictive. It makes the brain create things like “micro-aggressions” because EVERY IMPEDIMENT to one’s autonomy is the gravest threat. You want to detach without detaching. That’s radical autonomy. You deny a higher order and seem to dodge all consequence. That’s radical autonomy. You’re completely “colorblind.” That’s radical autonomy. You’re an “intellectual” homosexual. That’s radical autonomy. You’re a non-black black man. That’s radical autonomy. You go through life relentlessly applying nondiscrimination and tolerance to every act and thought. That’s radical autonomy. That’s radical liberation AND the surest path to self-annihilation and rule by a “default” elite.

You claim these “micro-aggressions” to be racist and belittling acts and then ASK what is going on with these white people?

In John’s case, he MINIMIZED his own autonomy. And you call this racist.

In other cases, said white person is consciously or unconsciously attempting to maximize his autonomy in relation to a percieved threat to his autonomy. Remember, black people are fly and can steal the show (no pun intended). You call this racism.

And in other cases, said white person is sufficiently “new” to the world of “black” and is sincerely intrigued. It’s like distant aliens meeting for the first time and there is bound to be miscommunication. You call this racism.

This is what happens when you have a radical amount of freedom on your hands. You get to play mini-tyrant if only just psychologically. Unfortunately, you will trap many in a circular maze that you don’t really play in.

I think it probably varies from case to case but from my experience, I can remember a few times when I’ve done or said things that would fall into the micro-aggression category. To me it’s more akin to just a lack of comprehension or understanding of the effects of one’s words or actions.

I’ll give an example of something I said once many years ago that still makes me cringe when I think about it.

I used to work in a kitchen, and one of the things the cooks would always do is kind of try to one up each other with good natured insults. I was going back and forth with this one guy who was mixed, we were cracking each other and everyone else up just going at each other and then I made a reference to slavery and he got super serious and was like “yo that’s not cool” I immediately apologized but even still he was always really cold towards me from then on. I felt like a jerk but at the time If I knew he was going to take it seriously I wouldn’t have said it. I liked and respected this guy and we had fun making jokes until then. From my perspective at the time having skin that’s a shade or two darker than mine isn’t anything to be all serious about. It was just another trait like being tall or short or thin or red headed or whatever. So it was definitely poor judgement and I wished I could have taken it back as soon as it came out but….

Also, I once asked an asian woman with a strong accent if she was Japanese. She wasn’t and I was pretty embarrassed after she told me where she was really from, I could tell she was annoyed by the question which is understandable, but I had no intention whatsoever of belittling her. I was just nervous about talking to a pretty girl and said the first thing that popped into my head without thinking. In my head, the perfect scenario would be that yes in fact she was japanese and how did I know I must be super perceptive and intuitive which would make her want to get to know me etc …… or some silly bullshit like that.

So anyway, a lot of times when I have said this stuff, it was to people I actually liked, or wanted them to like me and I just messed up. A lot of white people just honestly don’t understand why POC take race so seriously. I see now that there are a lot of good reasons why you do, it’s just that none of that is very apparent or obvious to white people unless they go looking and actively try to understand why it’s taken seriously.

I think these microagressions are conditioned, or result of the conditioning of the racist culture/System. It is very likely that most whites behaving like this are not knowingly racists, but their actions and behavior come from the culture they have been conditioned: to be alert and suspicious of other races. That is the whole point of the System. It makes people enemies and opponents because this way they can be ruled more easily. More divide, more suspicion, more hate between the people, easier it is to control them and “guide” them via media etc.

In case of the poor/poor working class/very small independent minibusines, it is better to have them walk all over in different directions and keep on hating each other, than have them to realise how much they ALL suffer from the System. There is always somebody out there who is after you somehow, usually with a different ethnic backround, color etc.A stranger, foreigner, muslim, black, even a french guy!! So look out!

This reminds me of some incidents I had in USA back in the 80’s, like the one I previously told about. In a book store the staff was alert when I walked in with couple of black friends. While I was looking for the book they just hung around and waited, looked books etc. and the staff alerted the security who had some trouble to understand that WE were together there.

In many times (usually) whites were amazed to see black AND white dude together, or white guy and some blacks as a group of friends, just like any group. The whole concept seemed to be alien. “You really with these guys? You sure? Are you ok, is everything ok?”. And I was amazed then.

It must be said that some blacks were also wondering what was going on but that just shows how the racist conditioning works.

In order to keep us all apart so that we could be more easily manipulated and ruled, the System keeps on breeding suspicion and fear like cancer among everybody. The microagression is a visible part of all this.

Why should anybody be affraid or be uncomfortable in the presece of another humanbeing, no matter what or who he/she is? Because the media (the System) keeps repeating the message how we all must be affraid of each other, how the other is a threat. The only person you are safe with is in the mirror and even then: be aware, very much aware!!!

“So anyway, a lot of times when I have said this stuff, it was to people I actually liked, or wanted them to like me and I just messed up. A lot of white people just honestly don’t understand why POC take race so seriously. I see now that there are a lot of good reasons why you do, it’s just that none of that is very apparent or obvious to white people unless they go looking and actively try to understand why it’s taken seriously.”

I guess and it’s just a guess, that no matter how sophisticated or primitive a human culture is or was, insults get really serious when it comes to lineage.

You could have been a white skinned human from any part of the world.
I can safely say that slavery is a mess you had no part involved in. But despite this , you did choose to bring it up. And the only link between you and slavery is your own acknowledgment of your own “whiteness ” card membership. Whether you did it subconsciously or not, does not matter.

You claimed and bet onto your symbolic lineage nonchalantly just to get to the upper hand in a mundane jokes contest.

That must have been really sobering for your would-be friend, tho. If you had been just a bit more deranged, you could have used this opportunity to turn the workplace into a really hostile place for him and it looks like he was not willing to take the chances.

Just when i feel like im beginning to understand Thordaddy, he begins talking again. LOL. Can someone write a condensed form for those of us illiterate in the language of radical autonomy. =P

Sure.

Lets start with this statement.

And in other cases, said white person is sufficiently “new” to the world of “black” and is sincerely intrigued. It’s like distant aliens meeting for the first time and there is bound to be miscommunication. You call this racism.

This is what he describes as the “good” microaggression. A person of another race, who through genuine ignorance, offends the person who is he talking to. You know Americans have some strange beliefs and customs. They hardly travel, and get their notions about foreigners, from television, and the white ones are loud and have no concept of personal space (and they don’t bathe with rags.)

The question is, how does the offended person deal with the offense?

This is what happens when you have a radical amount of freedom on your hands. You get to play mini-tyrant if only just psychologically.

Rather than use the phrase “radical autonomy”, I will use the the phrase “radical freedom”, which means that you can always choose your actions , even over your emotions, NO MATTER WHAT.

For example: In researching my Igbo forefathers, I learned that even when they were in chains on the slave ship they would rather throw themselves into the sea and starve themselves that submit to slavery. The exercised that choice, even though it was an extremely difficult one.

The problem with radical freedom, as shown above, is that the choices that we can make are so difficult that we deceive ourselves into thinking that they do not exist.

Examples:

You want to go natural, but you tell yourself that it will take too long
You want to start an new tech startup, but you tell yourself that quitting your ob would be too hard.
You want to talk to the girl who has been smiling at you all night, but you tell yourself that she and her friends will clown you if you do.

You know that you are a mighty race that can accomplish what you will, but you tell yourself that random insults and misunderstandings are aggressions that can hold you back.

Just look at the definition of “microaggression.”

“Microaggressions are those small everyday acts and subtle indignities through which the privileged, often without knowing it, make the marginalized feel, well, marginalized.”

You get to play mini-tyrant if only just psychologically. Unfortunately, you will trap many in a circular maze that you don’t really play in.

The whole idea of the microaggression is so that you can scold liberal whites, while at the same time making them acquiesce to your demands. It has nothing to do with attaining money, power or any other worthwhile objective. Handing out Tim Wise cookies will get you nowhere fast.

Chescaleigh could have just avoided the passive aggressive whites, but that would have meant that she would have to be a loner. She could have ignored the ignorant whites, but that would mean that she wouldn’t get to wag her finger and say “naughty white person.”

Just let go of this “microaggression” crap. And stop sweating the small stuff.

Either way, the American media is younger than the “Blackness” of Jamaica and Brazil.

More, it’s as if you forget that Black folk come from Africa.

You’re trying to difficult aren’t you?

Jamaican music has been influenced by American music since the ’50s. Back then, those guys didn’t want to seem like country bumpkins when they came to Kingston, so they stopped playing the Asante/Coromante inspired Kumina and Mento. Instead they listened to the music from the States that they picked up on their radios and appropriated the style into their music. And that’s how it was for some time.

These guys would even take their names from movies, like Dennis AlCapone, Josey Wales, Brigadier Jerry and so on.

By the ’90s, however, the economy was divested and liberalised, the broadcasting stations started showing mostly foreign programs, thus Jamaican culture no longer appropriated, but instead were taken over by American values.

We can see this, not only in the fact that Jamaica is now a consumer capitalist society but also in other anecdotes.

Famous Rastafarian singers now appear almost exclusively with light-skinned women wearing weaves.

Bunny Wailer, the last surviving member of The Wailers, now refers to himself as a “Thug Ras”, never mind the “Gangsta Ras” phenomenon.

Well I wouldn’t say that I understand it entirely. at first my assumption was that because I know that I don’t see blacks as inferior, and I assume blacks don’t see themselves as inferior, that I could pretty much say whatever and it wouldn’t matter much and it couldn’t be construed as racist. I have come to realize that this isn’t the case though. I’ve known several black people throughout my life, all from different backgrounds. They are all very different from one another as people and yet when it came to the subject of race or racism they all seemed to approach or respond in a similar, very serious way. So naturally, there must be a good reason for this or it wouldn’t be so universal. I guess that was my first clue.

And if these are people that I generally respect as friends/people, then I should just go along with their view because as a white person I can’t form an accurate picture of what race means as a black person.

But I can’t stress how important the actual relationship is when it comes to just taking someone’s word for it. In order to do that you have to trust a person and their motivations. I think that’s part of why forums like this are lacking and generate more frustration and negativity than anything else.

@ Nom de Plume:
That possibility definitely crossed my mind – the ‘paper-trail trap’. Like I said, “damned if I do, damned if I don’t.” Any answer I give, no matter how neutral in tone, is still picked to pieces by this bitch! 🙄

@ Herneith, laromana, & Matari:
I’m saving everything to a USB stick for my own documentation and personal records – one way or another, I have proof! I’m also updating my resume; fortunately, I have a couple of very supportive people in my corner. Networking helps, especially when one has made a great impression! 😎

@ brothawolf:
If you felt belittled, you most likely experienced some sort of microaggression. Remember Abagond’s previous post about ‘Gaslighting’? That is another form of microaggression – hell, we should just call it what it is: BULLYING!

Yes! I cannot tell you how many times I have gone to bathe in some white persons abode, only to see various streaks of their fur stuck to the bar of soap! Unlike the whites in Jamaica, who have been properly acculturated, the American white seems to be only to bathe with a strange mesh contraption. How odd!

I don’t get the sense that you have a learned aversion to an objective notion of Supremacy. Your talk of a fantastic African legacy and your quoting of certain Lauryn Hill lyrics calling for repentance suggests an affinity for things great than yourself.

Thanks. But it’s not just me. Even Charles Darwin (the son of the evolutionist) viewed racism as missplaced simply for the eventual repentance.

In America though, by and large, blacks (and a large swath of whites) are what we call “equalitists.” These “equalitists” have an affinity for things “equal” to each other. He is one who believes in egalitarianism. But in fact, he is a learned anti-Supremacist. He has an aversion to things greater than him and he never seeks to be greater than others. He thinks this is a harmonious state. For instance, he may have an aversion to a glorious legacy because such a legacy may hurt the feelings of others with a less glorious legacy just as the more glorious legacy of others has hurt his feelings. But there is no harmony in anti-Supremacy. There is only self-annihilation through the consistent application ONLY THOSE HIGHEST VALUES that can make us truly “equal.” Those HIGHEST LIBERAL values are nondiscrimination and tolerance.

We agree. But see, this is an aspect of White supremacy. We need to remember who is in charge–White people. And they may be ‘evil’ but their not incompetent. It’s fair to say, that your analysis is on point. You only do not attribute it to the independent White, in power. Remember the Black person in America is near entirely dependent on the White person in America. To look beyond White supremacy is to assert independence (and no self-annihilation.)

So when you state that white Supremacy, PROPERLY-defined, is an “obstacle” to blacks reclaiming their glorious past, WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE OBSTACLE???

When Blacks began to become more literate, history was revised. This is the part of White supremacy that keeps Blacks away from their past–White supremacists rewrote history! And today, when Blacks uncover their history, they are dismissed. What’s more, as Blacks are dependent on Whites–Blacks are in their control. The obstacle is that Blacks are dependent on Whites who do not want to tell the truth of Blacks.

And what is the solution when separationism is, inexplicably, off the table?

Truth is–“separatism” is the only solution. Otherwise, White people have a good deal: Black folk will continue to be enslaved–or killed.

And how does this tie into “micro-aggressive” acts?

I find that microaggression is a trialling of turncoat Blacks. Or an intimidation toward the very real enslavement/death waiting for Black people.

For instance, one is not thinking of robbing a store when one goes into it–but the thought of robbing a store is put into the minds of each person suspected of robbing a store. And–guess what? The suspicious person is so waiting for that robbery–so as to kill you or imprison you. That’s the truth.

A radical autonomy is the freedom to act without consequence. It is quite addictive. It makes the brain create things like “micro-aggressions” because EVERY IMPEDIMENT to one’s autonomy is the gravest threat. You want to detach without detaching. That’s radical autonomy. You deny a higher order and seem to dodge all consequence. That’s radical autonomy. You’re completely “colorblind.” That’s radical autonomy. You’re an “intellectual” homosexual. That’s radical autonomy. You’re a non-black black man. That’s radical autonomy. You go through life relentlessly applying nondiscrimination and tolerance to every act and thought. That’s radical autonomy. That’s radical liberation AND the surest path to self-annihilation and rule by a “default” elite.

Precisely. So long as the Black person does not want to separate–the Black person wants to die. We agree on the thesis. But why do you view this as negative, thordaddy?

“I’ve known several black people throughout my life, all from different backgrounds. They are all very different from one another as people and yet when it came to the subject of race or racism they all seemed to approach or respond in a similar, very serious way. So naturally, there must be a good reason for this or it wouldn’t be so universal. I guess that was my first clue.

And if these are people that I generally respect as friends/people, then I should just go along with their view because as a white person

**I can’t form an accurate picture of what race means as a black person.** ”

*************************************

I wonder what the determining factor is regarding the few white people that can come very close to understanding what race means to a black person versus those whites that can’t or won’t approach getting a clue. Is it a matter of will, persistence, empathy, living in close proximity to blacks, wanting to learn…?
To me, this is the billion dollar question!

As far as taking your friends’ words as the TRUTH, why is that an issue when countless other blacks, PoC and whites have written theses, text books, articles, posts on a subject that has been backed up by social science and other empirical studies and such? There’s a WEALTH of data and anecdotal observations that spans HUNDREDS of years which support what your black associates are telling you.

“In order to do that you have to trust a person and their motivations.”

So, in light of all the evidence, why does this all boil down to a trust and motivation issue?

Is it possible – to you – that millions of blacks are untrustworthy regarding their experience, and that we are all just trying to “get over” on white people, and the(ir) system ??

“So, in light of all the evidence, why does this all boil down to a trust and motivation issue?”

Well, I guess it’s a few things. Fir starters I said that it was my observation that nearly all black Americans take race/ racism seriously, however as I’m sure you know beyond that basic similarity there exists a wide range of opinions and levels of significance or importance among individuals. It is at this point where personal trust comes into play. It’s not as if all of black America speaks with one voice on every topic pertaining to race.

That said, I too would find it odd that many whites refuse to acknowledge the basic stuff AFTER they’ve been confronted about saying or doing something racist. As you said the info is out there so

Yes… We are going to have to get very nuanced here. But at least there is agreement on the major point.

Blacks and whites need now consider a real separation in this dysfunctional relationship. In fact, a majority of whites must think of a separation from all non-whites/radical liberationists.

I only view radical liberation negatively because its ULTIMATE fulfillment IS self-annihilation. Yet, I am DISCRIMINATE in who I decide to “oppress” with my TALK of steering clear of self-annihilation through the sheepish application of radical liberalism.

To me, blacks separating from “white supremacy” is an exercise of one’s moral autonomy. There is nothing radical in this separation assuming it is nonviolent, of course. But then again, it should be.

Your mistake is conflating an objective conception of Supremacy with white racism. They are not the same UNLESS you are unfortunately confined to a strictly material world. Again, I don’t sense that you are an atheist, although, you may worship a radically autonomous god and thus end up with the same conclusion. This would explain much.

So, could you provide me YOUR objective conception of “Supremacy” and then provide the manner in which you formulate that conception into “white racism.”

I think that you are guilty of defining “white” Supremacy in a very self-liberating way. My definition of white Supremacy is very particular and quite restraintful. This is why the liberationist hates it so.

PS Your embrace of “separatism” would put you on the extreme fringes in America’s political jungle.

“Is it possible – to you – that millions of blacks are untrustworthy regarding their experience, ”

Not to pick a fight but I’m pretty sure I already stated that it was this continued reinforcement that I found peruasive. So the answer would be no. Those matters regarding race that most if not all blacks tend to agree on I take to be generally true. What about you? You don’t seem to have a problem believing the vast majority of whites to be untrustworthy do you not?

“What about you? You don’t seem to have a problem believing the vast majority of whites to be untrustworthy do you not?”

*************************************

Nope. None at all. Mainly because I believe/see/overstand that whiteness has a corrosive “effect” that GENERALLY/USUALLY causes white people to see *others* as LESS than – and all the negative nonsense associated with “less than.”

The evidence of this is overwhelming.

But tell me John, between blacks and whites, which of these groups do YOU deem the most untrustworthy – and why?

I believe that your tolerated presence here is to confuse, disrupt, divide, derail and deny. Nonetheless, I have a couple of clear, simple questions for you. If you elect to answer, please try to remain focused on the actual (not perceived) questions.

Why do so-called white people STILL classify themselves as white?

And, why do white people go along with the classification of others as – Blacks, Indians, and so on and so forth?

Moreover, I would extend it to @Dave Lister, @SatanForce, @Randy etc. And whoever else keeps polluting these boards with their gibberish

I think they all hate being schooled by black women and men so they continually detract from the conversation with pseudo-information/quasi-facts. Wrap it up in a package and then try and make an arguement out of it.

I need whatever they’re smoking. Seriously.

“@ Thordaddy

I believe that your tolerated presence here is to confuse, disrupt, divide, derail and deny. Nonetheless, I have a couple of clear, simple questions for you. If you elect to answer, please try to remain focused on the actual (not perceived) questions.

Why do so-called white people STILL classify themselves as white?

And, why do white people go along with the classification of others as – Blacks, Indians, and so on and so forth?

Blacks and whites need now consider a real separation in this dysfunctional relationship. In fact, a majority of whites must think of a separation from all non-whites/radical liberationists.

If only. But Whites do not want this. They want an enslaved population. That’s the unspoken game.

To me, blacks separating from “white supremacy” is an exercise of one’s moral autonomy. There is nothing radical in this separation assuming it is nonviolent, of course. But then again, it should be.

It should, but likely can not be. I should tell you of my ancestors in America: The Maroons.

Whites marched up mountains to re-enslave those Africans, and if they did not respond violently, the violence exacted them would have been legion.

Your mistake is conflating an objective conception of Supremacy with white racism. They are not the same UNLESS you are unfortunately confined to a strictly material world. Again, I don’t sense that you are an atheist, although, you may worship a radically autonomous god and thus end up with the same conclusion. This would explain much.

You should ask prior to theorizing. I find that there’s no ‘mistake’ on my part, but an ‘overlooking’ on your own. I take it that you are traditionally educated and use this education to formulate your theories. This is the error of your ways. Traditional education is false.

So, could you provide me YOUR objective conception of “Supremacy” and then provide the manner in which you formulate that conception into “white racism.”

Very simply, as I already stated, “historical revisionism.”

“Historical revisionism” facilitated White supremacy after Africans in America were permitted to read.

In fact, looking at citations of this revisionism, I came across, just now, the “Dunning School.” It’s worth looking into; but it sure shows that shortly after the Civil War, historical education was changed so as to–say–make the African, now taught in America, conceive himself inferior: and, importantly, to look away from politics.

Fast forwarding to today–African people in America had one political show on television: “Like it is.” This was legally required. That has been canceled last year. This is how everything is interrelated. White Supremacy and White racism. We’re at war–though this blog and it’s participants wouldn’t make you think so.

PS Your embrace of “separatism” would put you on the extreme fringes in America’s political jungle.

True. But Malcolm X was a separatist and not the only one.

The largest African organizations have been separatist. The thing with African people–And European people (the masses at least) is that they are not organized.

For instance, the Klan is separatist–but underground (in some way or another.)

Truly, I think that the masses want to be separated (see White Flight). It’s only those with a voice who want to integrate–likely because exploitation involves contact.

I think John is a perfect example of the goal of “micro-aggression.”

Maximize the autonomy of blacks by minimizing the autonomy of whites. When one is CONFINED to a strictly material world, the fight for “freedom” is a zero-sum game.

One importance with ‘micro-aggression’ that is here overlooked is that it is, as defined, targeted at women, gays, poor people, the obese and the disabled, among others.

Truly, the truest analysis will show, and has shown, that it’s a matter of reconciling the ‘other’ with the “norm.” John has a normalcy which he waives over others. It’s an unspoken privilege for being “White” in America. The norm is–ironically–created by media and the American media is the global norm.

It’s interesting, because, it explains why a person like John can go to Lagos, Nigeria and ask “Why are there so many minorities?”

Though the privilege isn’t only for Whiteness. A Black man can be microaggressive to a White woman–for instance.

By and by, America rewards the White straight middle-class man with a false sense of normalcy. Truly, this demographic is a minority. 😉

“In reality, I am attempting to describe exactly what is taking place in this radically autonomous environment called America.”

******************************

No sir, in reality you won’t dare answer my simple questions for fear that your answers will reveal truth. Truth(s) you dare not allow yourself to expose.

You didn’t disappoint or surprise me. You only confirmed what many of us here already knew about you, and people like you. Thanks. You answered my questions perfectly. I have no further questions for you.

Could you imagine walking around your entire life telling yourself of the myriad of ways that “white supremacy” is oppressing you and just when you have actually confronted a genuine white Supremacist FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE, you cry incessantly about his lack of intelligibility.

You are saying you cannot understand a real white Supremacist.

Onitaset… I exclude you of course.

Although, it is mysterious how we have come to many agreements while these “others” are still lost in translation.

Am I supposed to tell that I learned about my “whiteness” in pre-school when I saw my first “Asian” kid? Or, I learned about “whiteness” in second grade history class when they told us about the “Indians?” or maybe, I learned about my “whiteness” in fourth grade pee-wee football when we lined up against all black Trotwood.

Does a stupid question deserve a serious answer? What gave you the impression that I was privy to that info? I’m assuming it’s not public or you would have retrieved it yourself.

Why would you classify anything by color? Why does color even matter? Why does it even matter that I think color matters?

I think Thordaddy would answer, if he could answer. He can’t.
He HAS TO HIDE behind his “verbal labyrinths” — otherwise he would have to face those questions squarely, firmly – with conviction and without compromise.

Whiteness compels people like Thordaddy to use their gifts of “gibberish” to confound, confuse, misdirect, conceal, taint as much truth as possible.

Thordaddy must somehow justify, via verbal gymnastics, that which he knows deep down – is wrong. It’s why he HAS TO communicate in an unclear, non lucid pseudo-intellectual (BS) manner.

Whiteness – the DIS-EASE that infiltrates and infects ALL people, regardless of their color, in one form or another.

* Dis – [Dis] God of the underworld; counterpart of Greek Pluto.

* Ease – Freedom from difficulty or hardship or effort.
– Freedom from constraint or embarrassment.
– A freedom from financial difficulty that promotes a comfortable state.

I am very loyal to my race. My affinity may be that I am new to blogging.

I suspect that they see in you a repetition where I see a novelty.

Perhaps its your terminologies which suggest propaganda.

I was accosted on this blog too–as a “Black male against the Black woman’s autonomy.” Something ridiculous.

In my case, the individualists (or radical autonomists) were quick to prejudice me. It was ironic.

I partially understand the opposition to you. In a Black house, there are no White people. So a White person in a Black house, especially a loud or intrusive White person, would be irritating–it’s preferred that only Blacks are in the Black house.

However, it doesn’t appear to me that Abagond’s blog is a “Black house” so I don’t fully sympathize with my siblings.

Nevertheless, it may be that the impression is that you’re intruding on a private discussion. When I was in the (White) feminist movement (college, amirite?), the men had to read a document of how men can dominate discussions and make women feel marginalized. I do not fully know of the Black/White replica of this–I don’t get into the situations–but perhaps others would know better whether White folk operate differently in all Black discussions.

Somehow, I think that the opposition to you is that you’re an open supremacist–which to me doesn’t make sense. Open is better than closed.

Matari makes a strong point about language (you can be confusing). Though, I find it a cultural thing; (White people) especially of the academy.

I should tell you that there are different flavors of supremacists and racists.

Though it seems that you are asking whether I find that there is an official rubric for supremacy. As a matter of fact, you struck gold in our conversation, for I happen to know that there is: Ethics. It’s a universal standard (or as universal as standards can be) that the ethical are the superior.

However, this doesn’t have a relation to “White Supremacy” as we know it.

Except that . . . White Supremacists have, as I said, revised history to make–say–Blackness bad and Whiteness good (see the Ethical standard?)

I shall borrow from Dr. King:

Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading. In Roget’s Thesaurus there are 120 synonyms for blackness and at least 60 of them are offensive, as for example, blot, soot, grim, devil and foul. And there are some 134 synonyms for whiteness and all are favorable, expressed in such words as purity, cleanliness, chastity and innocence. A white lie is better than a black lie. The most degenerate member of a family is a “black sheep.” Ossie Davis has suggested that maybe the English language should be reconstructed so that teachers will not be forced to teach the Negro child 60 ways to despise himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of inferiority, and the white child 134 ways to adore himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of superiority.

His next paragraph is worth quoting as well:

The tendency to ignore the Negro’s contribution to American life and to strip him of his personhood, is as old as the earliest history hooks and as contemporary as the morning’s newspaper. To upset this cultural homicide, the Negro must rise up with an affirmation of his own Olympian manhood. Any movement for the Negro’s freedom that overlooks this necessity is only waiting to be buried. As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free. Psychological freedom, a firm sense of self-esteem, is the most powerful weapon against the long night of physical slavery. No Lincolnian Emancipation Proclamation or Johnsonian Civil Rights Bill can totally bring this kind of freedom. The Negro will only be free when he reaches down to the inner depths of his own being and signs with the pen and ink of assertive manhood his own Emancipation Proclamation. And, with a spirit straining toward true self-esteem, the Negro must boldly throw off the manacles of self-abnegation and say to himself and to the world, “I am somebody. I am a person. I am a man with dignity and honor. I have a rich and noble history. How painful and exploited that history has been. Yes, I was a slave through my foreparents and I am not ashamed of that. I’m ashamed of the people who were so sinful to make me a slave.” Yes, we must stand up and say, “I’m black and I’m beautiful,” and this self-affirmation is the black man’s need, made compelling by the white man’s crimes against him.

You see the address to White Supremacy and it’s shackles upon African people. Beside, you see a version of White Supremacy.

I would not say that you’re a history revising individual–but it’s clear–like even the Africans Dr. King addresses, you are victim to the historical revisions.

Maybe there is a language barrier or maybe your real experience with white Supremacy is totally textbook inspired?

I can’t honestly say I’ve ever had a conversation discussing as to why “white people” CLASSIFY the “other” with various labels including some alluding to skin color.

But I will tell you WHY I CLASSIFY MATARI by the color of his skin (or perceived in this case) and that is because it correlates well with a certain set of beliefs about white people that non-white people have who perceive to be existing within a “white supremacist” world.

A truly ethical White person would not be an obstacle to African liberation. But come on–a truly ethical White person? That’s unheard of!

White Supremacy relies upon the falsely ethical White person. Not ironically, this same person is what Plato remarks as the least desirable person to be.

In “The Republic,” he records Glaucon to say to Socrates:

‘And now let us frame an ideal of the just and unjust. Imagine the unjust man to be master of his craft, seldom making mistakes and easily correcting them; having gifts of money, speech, strength—the greatest villain bearing the highest character: and at his side let us place the just in his nobleness and simplicity—being, not seeming—without name or reward—clothed in his justice only—the best of men who is thought to be the worst, and let him die as he has lived. I might add (but I would rather put the rest into the mouth of the panegyrists of injustice—they will tell you) that the just man will be scourged, racked, bound, will have his eyes put out, and will at last be crucified (literally impaled)—and all this because he ought to have preferred seeming to being. How different is the case of the unjust who clings to appearance as the true reality! His high character makes him a ruler; he can marry where he likes, trade where he likes, help his friends and hurt his enemies; having got rich by dishonesty he can worship the gods better, and will therefore be more loved by them than the just.’

Essentially, Glaucon asks which is it better to be–an immoral person perceived as moral or a moral person perceived as immoral? Socrates answers the latter (that’s the premise of the book–you should read it); but European culture dictates the former. Socrates would later be murdered for going against European culture. Get it? (Certainly no one wants to accuse Europe of a monolith culture–but it’s not far fetched considering its stretch and influence–especially the relevance here.)

If White people conspired to honestly be ethical, the world would be different. Today, White people conspire to be perceived as ethical in light of being unethical: This is where White Supremacy shines.

You know what’s a good, clear, modern example of being perceived as ethical though doing something unethical? Nazi propaganda. Heck–even wars. Remember the whole “Stop Saddam from killing Iraqis?”

The problem is that we must first have a conception of just/unjust, truth/lie, moral/immoral. This must be pre-Socrates.

Say one is TOTALLY just, truthful and moral in a way that we both agree gave these conceptions the absolutely highest regard.

Would the most just, truthful and moral person be supreme, OBJECTIVELY? Would said person be evidence of Supremacy?

A moral man who is perceived as immoral is cast amongst a sea of radical autonomists. He is a very particular thing amongst a bunch of nothing in particulars. And an immoral man posing as a moral man is RADICAL AUTONOMY par excellence. Think of Barack Obama, a “Christian” who believed in Michelle’s “fundamental right” to KILL HIS daughters in utero.

This is an example of a radical autonomist attempting to destroy a supreme order in general and of a black man leading other black men towards self-annihilation, in particular.

What is just, truthful and moral is peaceful separation. Genuine white Supremacy can accommodate this and black liberation can be achieved.

The problem is that we must first have a conception of just/unjust, truth/lie, moral/immoral. This must be pre-Socrates.

That’s just it. Pre-Socrates there is a conception; but it’s not in Europe. Far as I understand, there’s not even a concept of good in Europe pre-Socrates (or post-Socrates for that matter), with the possible exception of the Celts but that’s a whole other story.

That’s really, really the root of the problem, in my point of view.

Would the most just, truthful and moral person be supreme, OBJECTIVELY? Would said person be evidence of Supremacy?

Though, not to contradict my earlier statements, “God” is defined in the Western Canon as that Supreme Good and is considered the most Supreme being objectively and definitively. I could give you a much abridged list of Philosophers with this conception for you.

A moral man who is perceived as immoral is cast amongst a sea of radical autonomists. He is a very particular thing amongst a bunch of nothing in particulars. And an immoral man posing as a moral man is RADICAL AUTONOMY par excellence. Think of Barack Obama, a “Christian” who believed in Michelle’s “fundamental right” to KILL HIS daughters in utero.

I would prefer to use George Bush on this example. Though the shoe fits on anyone in the Western world really. George Bush is the ideal example though; especially when one considers that abortion is hardly the ground breaking injustice.

By the way, the example of the moral perceived as immoral would fit the Jesus narrative (on an individual scale.)

This is an example of a radical autonomist attempting to destroy a supreme order in general and of a black man leading other black men towards self-annihilation, in particular.

Sort of; but there’s bigger problems in this world. You know?

What is just, truthful and moral is peaceful separation. Genuine white Supremacy can accommodate this and black liberation can be achieved.

What do you think?

Shouldn’t that be the goal?

Precisely. I should admit that my affinity for your writings relates to a recent reading I had of a speech given by a member of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America. Your reminding me of him inspires this dialogue. He comes to the conclusion that we ought separate. He, however, says much more than you–to accommodate for his African audience.

Your beef is with white degenerates (immoral whites) posing as white Supremacists (moral white men) who are then allowed to oppress the black man through a system of “white supremacy?”

I agree that genuine white Supremacists should be bold and stand up for a completely nonviolent liberation of the American black.

Where do we start outlining this? Is this a Black House or a Liberationist’s House? If this isn’t the place to start talking about genuine white Supremacy (supreme whitr ethics) seeking genuine black liberation, where is it?

I think like many nonwhites, your beef is with the “white” in “white Supremacy” and not with the actual Supremacy aspect. The truly substantive aspect.

Your notion of “white supremacy” as the ability to rewrite history is intriguing and there is certainly evidence of the ability to rewrite history so as to signal “supremacy” in real-time.

But again, you must be LIBERAL in your notion while I am being literal.

A genuine white Supremacist is a rare thing indeed. By definition, he must be. He is particular and so he is exclusive. These are all the opposite traits of the liberationist. The liberationist seeks freedom from all impediments and particular ways of being. His language is fluid and words take on EXPANDED meanings. He takes a principled stance against the oppression of the first principle. He seeks to maximize his autonomy by any means necessary buy especially by those means that come without effort or price. Like blogging for instance. A liberal is driven by the desire for absolute freedom in a finite world.

In America, there are basically two sets of players with players in each set being at varying degrees of “pureness.”

These players are Supremacists and radical autonomists. The latter far outnumber the former yet there is infinitely more “pureness” in the former than the latter.

Most blacks in America are radical autonomists (black liberationists) and anti-white Supremacist. To hold TRUE to their radical autonomy they conceptualize Supremacy to EQUAL degeneracy so that “white supremacy” equals “white degeneracy.” And we can further define “white supremacy” as the maliciously irrational oppression of the black man’s right to freedom.

This is but a self-serving definition of white Supremacy. It is the manufactured product of the radical autonomist. Particularly, the black liberationist.

Your beef is with white people, no doubt. But your beef with the genuine white Supremacist isn’t equal to the way more prevalent beef you have with white liberals (rewriters of history).

Why you conflate the two even as you suggest that white liberals (immoral white men) are posing as white Supremacists (moral white men) is left to be unanswered?

No, but alas, how you honour me by assuming that I would one of such a great people! But, ah I am not though I valiantly try. Indeed, everyday, twice a day, I bathe myself. head to toe with concoction of my own making. I use a combination of Chlorox and sulphur. Unfortunately in the 9 years I have used this, I have not seen any improvement…..

This is irrelevant. Marcus Garvey mentions how he observed shadeism (or colorism) in Jamaica prior to coming to America. In fact, “Shadeism” and “Colorism” came from the West Indies to America. Even Toussaint (of Haiti) had to deal with it.

Are you trolling me? If so, then bravo!! If not, well look at my original comment.

which was an attempt to understand what his idea of the Black man’s radical autonomy. I now see that I misunderstood him, though it was a productive misunderstanding.

Now look at my statements. I speak of how Jamaican blacks are now of the belief that they face the same problems as American blacks, and are thus rendered unaware of their own history and situation.

Did I , at any time, mention any thing about shadeism? Why would I even talk about shadeism? Shadeism is only relevant to the bottom-feeding skin-bleaching underclass, and beauty show contestants. A country with a dark-skinned majority management class, political system and aristocracy need not concern itself with such things.

Most Jamaicans are not running around, colourstruck by Beyonce, Nikki Minaj or the latest beauty show contestant that the upper classes seem to think that people care about. Hasn’t been that way since the early ’70s. I’d say even as far back as ’68.

This is 2012, not turn of the century St. Ann. Shadeism is irrelevant. Why would you even think that I was talking about shadeism?

In fact, “Shadeism” and “Colorism” came from the West Indies to America.

Please source some evidence for your above statement.

“Afrocentric stuff?” What’s that supposed to imply?

You know, that Stolen Legacy, egyptism, “Hotep!!”, “the Black woman is a queen, and the black man is king” Marcus Garvey crap?

And what’s Cocacolonisation have to do with it?

Now that I put shadeism in Jamaica into its proper context, you can read my original comment to see get the original context of what I am saying.

Your beef is with white degenerates (immoral whites) posing as white Supremacists (moral white men) who are then allowed to oppress the black man through a system of “white supremacy?”

No, no, thordaddy. There’s no such thing as a moral White man (or at least there is no organization of moral White men.) The White Supremacist is the White degenerate posing to be moral. There’s no actual moral White man to be confused with.

I agree that genuine white Supremacists should be bold and stand up for a completely nonviolent liberation of the American black.

No one expects it to be non-violent. The true White supremacist (the immoral posing as moral) [or what you call White liberal] doesn’t want separation. You know this.

Where do we start outlining this? Is this a Black House or a Liberationist’s House? If this isn’t the place to start talking about genuine white Supremacy (supreme whitr ethics) seeking genuine black liberation, where is it?

Truly, White and Black folk don’t need to share the conversation. White folk need to talk to White folk and Black folk need to talk to Black folk. Why would organization be integrated if the organized want to be separated?

And we can further define “white supremacy” as the maliciously irrational oppression of the black man’s right to freedom.

White Supremacy is not irrational. It’s perfectly rational. White people brought Black people into America to enslave them. Then they went to Africa and colonized for African resources. It’s not irrational. It’s malicious, it’s oppressive, but it isn’t irrational.

Nevertheless, through it all, White people have taught Whites and Blacks that they are doing the Black people a favor. To this day, some Black people congratulate these exploitative efforts as a beneficiary in their lives. That’s the reality.

Why you conflate the two even as you suggest that white liberals (immoral white men) are posing as white Supremacists (moral white men) is left to be unanswered?

You’re not seeing how they are one in the same. Were moral White men the “White Supremacists,” there would be no “White Supremacists.”

In reality, they are one in the same. If we go by history, however, the “White Supremacist,” is one who believes in the Superiority of the White race (most every White person) but who openly enunciates thusly. I gave you an objective notion of Supremacy, but that’s not in the mainstream. The White Supremacist fancies Whites as more attractive, intelligent, . . . than Blacks.

By the by, though, the two are conflated because every White person conceives himself better than every Black person. This, as Matari enunciates affects the ethics of White folk (hence why no moral White person).

We are born to think that we are exceptional. It is called our perspective. So instead of pinpointing whites as the only culprits of exceptionalism, why don’t we extend this quality to people of all ethnicities. Yes, i think i am more important than you. But i also think i am more important than my family members that are white and other white people. I don’t stand my exceptionalism claim on the amount of whiteness that I have. I stand it on the fact that i feel important no matter who i am comparing myself to.

This self-importance may be infuriating but i assure you that it doesn’t just rest on white individuals. It rests within all of us.

Lets us compare. My intention was to show that high profile Rastafarian entertainers (Sizzla, Capleton, Buju Banton), who were once the pillar of black self -esteem in Jamaica, have gladly embraced American consumer capitalism. Now guys like those are almost always seen with light skinned women with their hair chemically straightened, or in weaves.

You claimed that I said that this applies to Jamaican entertainers, when I was speaking of a subset of them. Not all of them . Just the most popular ones. The less popular ones however…..

But even then had DuBois (or Garvey) been familiar with what was happening in Jamaica at the time , he would have had known that the dark skinned leadership was just as black as it was mixed. You had men like George Stiebler, with his equally dark wife Magdalene, St William Grant, Gladstone Wilson, Raphael Morgan, among others. DuBois was quite mistaken. We had lots of dark skinned people fighting for the rights of blacks in Jamaica

DuBois took colourism from the “West Indies”? Knee-grow please!!! He must have meant Barbados or Trinidad or somewhere else!

Like I said, I once sat with the White feminists, so this should tell you that I am versed in the male and female dichotomy.

But again, this is why I stress the most important issue for the African person to realize, or even for the European to realize, is that the former is kidnapped and the latter is the kidnapper.

Notice my diction: “Individualism.” The phenomenon that you speak of is “Individualism” which is linked with European Philosophers. So to speak, African people in America are “Individualists” like European people because African people are a kidnapped population. Get it?

Hence why the narrative is on separation. By the by, African people can not be “African people” in America. Meaning–“this exceptionalism” isn’t a typical train in many African communities.

Are you getting what I am telling you?

What you presume to be human nature is an imposed culture–this is what should be the complaint of African people. Instead, as you point out, there’s a clash of exceptionalisms–but you know what–that conversation is very boring . …

Anyhow, uhmm, “Exceptionalism” is a political concept of America’s. “Individualism” is a political concept of Europe. The phenomenon that you described was the latter–though you used the former’s diction.

But no–the wheel was not reinvented–the “individualism” that we know has to do with the active exposure of the concept by the powers that be.

You must realize that different cultures have different conceptions of the self–and we are victims of our culture in our self-perception.

You seem to think that each of us independently defined ourselves in a way befitting the general pattern of self-definition. This can easily explain our self-definition, but wouldn’t stand up to a scientific experiment where a person would be exposed to a different culture and thereby have a different definition of self. This you know.

I had typed out a whole response to what you said but i just figured that it might not even be relevant to our conversation any longer about microaggressions. I would just say that i respectfully disagree with the notion that:

“By the by, though, the two are conflated because every White person conceives himself better than every Black person. This, as Matari enunciates affects the ethics of White folk (hence why no moral White person).”

I think some sloppy inferences are made here.

While i might think i am better than other people, as a group I think Blacks are morally superior/physically superior/intellectually superior to Whites. I am white. I can go one step forward and explain why: I think Blacks are altogether superior than whites because they have survived, and have ultimately thrived in these many different arenas despite every effort made by whites to strip them of these innate superiorities. I sincerely doubt that whites, put in the same position, would have persevered. I think that we have seen the innate fortitude of Blacks through history and the innate weakness of Whites through deceitfulness, revisionism, and theft of others’ ideas and properties. Also the sublimation of others’ culture and personhood moreover confirms the altogether weakness of the white person morally. Then you have the fact that the majority are in complete denial about their own culpability of that system today. Shows another complete moral failure.

This is not even touching on the cultural/intellectual/artistic/physical achievements of Blacks which could take lifetimes to describe in full.

This is why as a group i think Blacks are superior to Whites. And therefore I would ask you to retract your statement that “every” White person conceives themself better than every Black. I don’t think so. I might think i am better then every other person but i would never hold that Whites are superior to Blacks. Quite the opposite, actually.

JT, I know of plenty of exceptions (I even recognize Wendell Phillips on my blog). However, exceptions do not make a rule. Once upon a time, White people openly deified Black people. But that’s once upon a time.

In your lifetime you were bombarded with ideas of racial superiority and I was bombarded with ideas of racial inferiority. That’s what’s true. If you and I self-educate ourselves otherwise, that deserves congratulations and kudos, but it’s neither here nor there.

Black girls are walking around with blonde hair in America. In Black neighborhoods, Black people only own food and barber shops. Their nails aren’t being done by them; their schools aren’t taught by them. In fact, it’s said among the Black community that “The White man’s ice is colder.”

I forgot the word, but there’s a word dealing with the example of speaking on a specific case among a general case; so to say, when I wrote that every White person . . . I meant “all people (more or less)” but, on topic, only specified the White people.

Yes, there are exceptions–but who cares?

When you say that water is 100 degrees Celsius, some of the water molecules are hotter and some of them are colder, but you’re still correct in claiming the water 100 degrees.

The easier example is that most everyone considers men superior to women. It’s not an insult and it’s not inaccurate, it’s a statement on a culture and a system of indoctrination.

You and I may respect women, but really it’s neither here nor there. If you want to analyze the culture, you need to make the general statements, otherwise in light of culture, you will fool yourself that there is no culture.

For instance, should I retract the statement “No one likes to be whipped” for the masochists, or do you understand that there are self-educated exceptions?

So i think we can also both agree that the line between speaking in absolutes and speaking with representational validity is clearly one to tread lightly on. Otherwise, it is very possible that otherwise verifiable & sound statements come off as discreditable (i.e. “every” white can also be known as a white supremicist).

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that when referring to systems, things become quite complicated and terminologies are not necessarily as incisive as we would like.

Very true, and sometimes we multitask late at night and are held to account the following day. Human error is sometimes a poetry that can not be corrected.

I wouldn’t really re-use the language, but I like how it is. It’s not ‘accurate,’ no; but it gives the proper attention to the problems at hand. For instance, I should not concern myself with the perception of Whites on Blacks, but of most Blacks on most Blacks. By the by, it is as I earlier prescribed the Whites. Black people do not value themselves as much. And it’s this self-value that Black people need to gain in order to get into a better position. This was King’s message.

I would not be surprised if White people secretly admired Black people. In fact, John’s first comment was on how Black people may perceive him as uncool–something telling. But look at the statistics, 98% of Black people have a lower income than 75% of White people. This (about) means that most every Black person you know makes less money than every fourth White person you know. Ain’t that something? (Notice that I wrote ‘about’ for it may be that for you no White people you know makes more money than the Black people you know, but you see how this individualist wording defeats the message at hand?)

Whether you or I have particular beliefs, it means little for those of us aiming to improve the conditions of African people in America. This is why I don’t engage with the comedy and the trolling.

Consider JT what your goal in this world is and how that fits into what you do.

Finally, I’ll show you what Wendell Phillips’ (1861) wrote, defending African people and praising Toussaint L’Ouverture as a splendid example (this was when Haiti was a wonderful country in its own right):

I would call him Napoleon, but Napoleon made his way to empire over broken oaths and through a sea of blood. This man never broke his word. “No RETALIATION” was his great motto and the rule of his life; and the last words uttered to his son in France were these: “My boy, you will one day go back to St. Domingo; forget that France murdered your father.” I would call him Cromwell, but Cromwell was the only soldier, and the stae he founded went down with him into his grave. I would call him Washington, but the great Virginian held slaves. This man risked his empire rather than permit the slave trade in the humblest village of his dominions.

You think me a fanatic tonight, for you read history, not with your eyes, but with your prejudices. But fifty years hence, when Truth gets a hearing, the Muse of History will put Phocion of the Greek, and Brutus for the Roman, Hampden for England, Fayette for France, choose Washington as the bright, consummate flower of our earlier civilization, and John Brown the ripe fruit of our noonday, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the soldier, the statesman, the martyr, Toussaint l’Ouverture.

“While i might think i am better than other people, as a group I think Blacks are morally superior/physically superior/intellectually superior to Whites. I am white. I can go one step forward and explain why: I think Blacks are altogether superior than whites because they have survived, and have ultimately thrived in these many different arenas despite every effort made by whites to strip them of these innate superiorities. I sincerely doubt that whites, put in the same position, would have persevered. I think that we have seen the innate fortitude of Blacks through history and the innate weakness of Whites through deceitfulness, revisionism, and theft of others’ ideas and properties. Also the sublimation of others’ culture and personhood moreover confirms the altogether weakness of the white person morally. Then you have the fact that the majority are in complete denial about their own culpability of that system today. Shows another complete moral failure.

This is not even touching on the cultural/intellectual/artistic/physical achievements of Blacks which could take lifetimes to describe in full.

This is why as a group i think Blacks are superior to Whites. And therefore I would ask you to retract your statement that “every” White person conceives themself better than every Black. I don’t think so. I might think i am better then every other person but i would never hold that Whites are superior to Blacks. Quite the opposite, actually.”

************************************

Um JT… according to the views that some here have regarding racism – particularly the word “racist” as its currently defined in Webster’s and other dictionaries, your radical declaration clearly establishes you, indeed, as a bonafide “RACIST!”

How shall you respond to your critics and naysayers who will inevitably charge you as such based upon the above quote regarding Africans?

Tons of ways. But in short the Jews in America, for all the ish they go through, rarely have their humanity questioned. It is because they are white (or white enough). If you do not believe that, then read this:

“@Robert, don’t you think we all deal with perceived “microaggrssions” the difference between the people who have road rage and the people who don’t is the people who don’t sweat the small stuff. I know white people who are convinced that every time a black person goes through the drive through in the bank and they know a white person is behind them they will make the white person wait on purpose by taking five minutes to count their check or whatever. That shit can go both ways. But come on man most people arent like that.. If you can’t let the small stuff go then how can we EVER come together.”

You said this on the wrong thread. It belongs here.

Microaggressions are not about being mean (though some are mean), but about belittling people based on marginalization.

You said you look like a “very ethnic Italian”. What if people assumed you were just like the Italian Americans in the Godfather films or “The Sopranos”? What if people kept talking to you in a fake, exaggerated Italian American Brooklyn/New Jersey/South Philly accent? To, you know, make you feel more comfortable? What if people, to make small talk, kept telling how much they like (or hate) pizza?

What if they kept saying stuff like this:

– She’s good-looking for an Italian girl.
– What part of Italy were you born in?
– I don’t see you as Italian. We all bleed red.
– It’s almost like you are not Italian
– Yo, Vinnie!
– You must have an uncle in the Mafia, right?
– Can you hook me up with some free pizza?

What if women clutched their handbags while security guards and the police kept a close eye on you – because everyone knows that Italian men are born thieves? Even though you have never stolen a thing in your life?

And what if people did this stuff not just once in a blue moon or when they were too young to know better or because they are the occasional dumb-ass, but day after day and month after month and year after year?

If you go through the Stuff White Girls Say to Black Girls video and try to flip the script, it does not work – because the thought patterns, and even some of the required words, are not there. Because racism in America is asymmetric.

As a Jew whose grandmother was killed in a camp I am profoundly insulted. Don’t you realise that the simple fact of drawing these crosses IS denying our humanity. And your article using my people and its suffering as a propaganda tool is not cute.

I doubt that that criticism will come. It would seem that whites lose it when a person of colour puts forward these truths but disregards it when another white puts them forward. We are dismissed under another category (I think I’ve heard “n***** lover” been thrown my way a couple of times).

Yes, the swastika is dehumanizing, but no, most Jewish Americans do not understand anti-black racism. Many understand part of it, maybe more so than most whites, but not as much as they think they do. That is because they have chosen to live as whites in America.

That has two effects (and I am speaking generally here, not about every single Jewish American, an impossible task):

1. It protects them from the levels of dehumanization that blacks experience.

2. It puts them on the wrong side of history in America, one that requires them to dehumanize blacks and yet not see it as such. Therefore they do not WANT to understand anti-black racism, not in its fullness, not most of them.

So anti-Semitism gives them a false sense of understanding anti-black racism.

Very true, and sometimes we multitask late at night and are held to account the following day. Human error is sometimes a poetry that can not be corrected.

I wouldn’t really re-use the language, but I like how it is. It’s not ‘accurate,’ no; but it gives the proper attention to the problems at hand. For instance, I should not concern myself with the perception of Whites on Blacks, but of most Blacks on most Blacks. By the by, it is as I earlier prescribed the Whites. Black people do not value themselves as much. And it’s this self-value that Black people need to gain in order to get into a better position. This was King’s message.

I would not be surprised if White people secretly admired Black people. In fact, John’s first comment was on how Black people may perceive him as uncool–something telling. But look at the statistics, 98% of Black people have a lower income than 75% of White people. This (about) means that most every Black person you know makes less money than every fourth White person you know. Ain’t that something? (Notice that I wrote ‘about’ for it may be that for you no White people you know makes more money than the Black people you know, but you see how this individualist wording defeats the message at hand?)

Whether you or I have particular beliefs, it means little for those of us aiming to improve the conditions of African people in America. This is why I don’t engage with the comedy and the trolling.

Consider JT what your goal in this world is and how that fits into what you do.

Finally, I’ll show you what Wendell Phillips’ (1861) wrote, defending African people and praising Toussaint L’Ouverture as a splendid example (this was when Haiti was a wonderful country in its own right):

I would call him Napoleon, but Napoleon made his way to empire over broken oaths and through a sea of blood. This man never broke his word. “No RETALIATION” was his great motto and the rule of his life; and the last words uttered to his son in France were these: “My boy, you will one day go back to St. Domingo; forget that France murdered your father.” I would call him Cromwell, but Cromwell was the only soldier, and the stae he founded went down with him into his grave. I would call him Washington, but the great Virginian held slaves. This man risked his empire rather than permit the slave trade in the humblest village of his dominions.

You think me a fanatic tonight, for you read history, not with your eyes, but with your prejudices. But fifty years hence, when Truth gets a hearing, the Muse of History will put Phocion of the Greek, and Brutus for the Roman, Hampden for England, Fayette for France, choose Washington as the bright, consummate flower of our earlier civilization, and John Brown the ripe fruit of our noonday, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the soldier, the statesman, the martyr, Toussaint l’Ouverture.”

I think this post is brilliant.

I agree. Privately holding Blacks in a higher esteem is one thing; taking steps to cultivate friendships, grow mindfulness, build stronger ties, earn respect,
is a different matter altogether.

I do hold this in mind throughout my day and am very aware that I am not a messiah and it is not my job to save anyone (as a white man would typically try). At the same time it is hard to withdraw my positive regard and not attempt to do right by a people that i aspire to be more like and grow closer to. While simultaneously de-romanticizing ideas of other “peoples” as a uniform quality or of similar characteristics. It is a very careful balancing act but well worth one life’s effort in my opinion.

Sorry to derail, buy don’t forget that there are many white Jews who “bank on their whiteness” and engage in the same racist studies against blacks that white Americans engage in. Which as I recall, was the same “generic inferiority proving” tactic that was executed by the Nazis against Jews in Germany.

Oh, I remember that Oprah episode! I remember all those white people’s reactions saying Jane Elliot mistreated them; not realizing what POC have to go through every day of their lives. I love Jane Elliott’s feisty attitude especially when she put those blue-eyed people, who tried to browbeat her, in their place.

“I doubt that that criticism will come. It would seem that whites lose it when a person of colour puts forward these truths but disregards it when another white puts them forward.”

*******************************

Actually, I was attempting to be facetious while poking fun and ridicule at the common and current definition of the word “racist.” A definition that I very strongly disagree with. I thought the smiley face along with the comment might suggest that the statement was tongue in cheek.

According to your definition of a “racist” JT isn’t one? Interesting… How would you (re)define “racism” and/or “racist”?”[/Quotation]

Prophecy fulfilled. White reacts to Black and not White (even when a white was the one that made the original statement). LOL beyond predictable of my “kind.”

@ eco

Why don’t you do the hard work yourself and reread some of the posts as to why racism is specific to whites and not blacks instead of asking Matari to do the hard work for you. It has only been stated a couple million times in total: in this thread and others.

I agree with the lady in the video. White people do not feel they should have to learn anything about non-whites (I do not use the word “Minorities”). This is why you get these wilful ignorance when it comes to things like the NAACP or black colleges, etc.

@abagond, and you DON’T think that people do that. I’ve had it happen over 150 times and I brush it off. Some people are very ignorant, I will say that sometimes we pay for the sins of others in this world who look like us. Is that right absolutely not. If I thought it was I would be the biggest hypocrite here, because that has been the basis of alot of my arguments here. That I shouldn’t have to pay for a sin that another “white”man has committed presently and especially in the past. Some of these “microaggressions” are also a part of that and it is absolutely wrong to do. I do believe we should be judged as individuals. Not by what race we are. But we have to practice that on both sides right?

Not really. I don’t want to be part of that discussion. Its premises and assumptions seem problematic to me, thus all conclusions are nonsensical in my book. Anyone willing to agree with the premises of the discussion, take part in it and push back (say whites aren’t bad) will be as wrong as you are. There is no right stance in this conversation.

I specifically asked about the definition of “racist”/”racism” because I consider it to be fundamental. It is defined using basic terms so it leaves little room for inaccuracies and distortions.
I do agree with the common definition of “racist”. Matari apparently thinks it’s obviously wrong. Since its flaws are not subtle I’m sure Matari will easily point them out and maybe even construct a better definition.

Seriously, defining “racism” is a problem? I’m not asking for a long description. I do not want an explanation. I do not expect a wikipedia article. I’m looking for a definition. 20 to 30 words that should be in the core of your understanding of race relations. How the hell can you consider yourself capable of deciding whether something is or isn’t racist when you cannot describe what the word means?

What I’m searching for looks like this:
“racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”
Easy, isn’t it?

But in short the Jews in America, for all the ish they go through, rarely have their humanity questioned. It is because they are white (or white enough).

don’t forget that there are many white Jews who “bank on their whiteness” and engage in the same racist studies against blacks that white Americans engage in.

I can attest to this first-hand.

I strongly belive that this is the main reason (Jews are considered ‘white’) that the Holocaust is treated as more historically important, and an horrific crime against humanity, than the Middle Passage and all other elememts of slavery were / are. If there were actual pictures and ‘film documentation’ of how terrible and dehumanising those events were, then perhaps people would recognize that they were equal to the events of the Holocaust – but that’s highly unlikely.

Sadly, most people simply aren’t intelligent enough to comprehend things that A) they haven’t experienced first-hand, and B) if it isn’t on YouTube, then it never happened!

I have been guilty of unintended micro-agressions. I say unintended because the action was intended, but not due to race.
I wear my bag strapped crosswise, so it hangs to the side or back. No matter the location (bus stop, elevator, waiting room) when another person comes close to me, I move it to the front. If you are human, you have the capacity to steal from me. I trust no one. However, whites, Asians, Jews, perhaps even some/many Latinos will never notice this behavior of mine. Why not? Because it doesn’t happen to them much. For blacks, though, it happens all the time and it happens because of their skin color. I have no qualms with blacks being upset with me or thinking I’m uppity because of it. They have every right to be upset. I cannot expect a black person to know my reason, or that I’m different from others who portray this same micro-agression. After all, how often is it really different? I’m sure there are plenty of people who feel the same way I do (about humans not being trustworthy), however I doubt there’s enough to change the face of this particular micro-agression. We know the typical reason behind it, and it’s rarely the same as mine.
It’s the same with all micro-agressions. Even if one’s intended reason is different than the usual, you must understand what the usual is. We cannot be upset that our reasoning was mistaken for the usual. We cannot be upset because someone was unable to discern that we are somehow “different” than all the others that exhibit these micro-agressions.
So you can pick your battles if you choose, or you can question me. I would appreciate it if you did the latter. I have learned not to be offended by what someone thought my action portrayed. Instead I have learned to apologize for giving someone the perception that I was being discriminatory. I need to point out (particularly to the white folk) that choice in language here is monumental. There is a huge (cavernous, in fact) difference between “I’m sorry I gave you that impression” and “I’m sorry you feel that way.” The former acknowledges that it was your action that caused the feelings, and it was. The latter puts all the blame on another. Stop passing the buck; you played a part, too.
Another reason I would prefer someone mention a micro-agression to me is because, despite intention, it allows me to be reflect on my words or actions. Even if I disagree, it still allowed for self-reflection and an opportunity to view another perspective.
So yes, let us pick our battles as we see fit, because we only have so much energy, but let us not forget that these battles still need to be addressed less they continue.
For the record, I still have the energy to continue to address every micro-agression, but only in pointing it out. Rarely will I engage in debate over it. I am tired of dealing with the defensiveness that is so common when one’s actions are questioned, but I can’t let that stop me from making others aware.

I see. Thanks! I assumed it was something like that but I wasn’t sure. It’s not really about holding your bad tightly to your body per se; it’s about being afraid of robbery just because a black person is present, right?

Jane Elliott is awesome. It takes someone like her to make whites see how blind they are by their privilege and so called entitlement. She is a mirror to make them see the ugliness that is fear and ignorance in themselves. Why are’nt there more Jane Elliott’s fighting against racism?

[…] “She's pretty for a black girl” – as if white girls are prettier than black girls; Being hypervisible – or invisible – to whites; Telling a racist joke; Showing a Confederate flag. And on and on. […]

As an Asian woman (ethnically Filipina), I have experienced racial microaggressions from both White people AND Black people. WARNING— this is very long, and if you do happen to take the time to read it, then I take my hat off to you.

– One time, when I was nine years old, I was with my family shopping at an Asian food market. Two Black women came up to me and asked, “Do you work here?” Umm, did I even look old enough to be an employee? I was wearing a ponytail, a green “Baby Phat Girl” shirt, and denim capris for Pete’s Sake!

– Around the same age, I was the only Asian girl in a predominantly White martial arts class. There was this boy who seemed like a friendly person towards me, but who also asked me “Do you speak English?”

– Another instance – my little sister (nine at the time) and I (eleven at the time) were in the elevator of a hotel during a family vacation in Virginia. There was this VERY Anglo-looking (blonde, blue eyes, pinkish hued skin) family in there with us— a father, a mother, and their little girl. The father seemed to be staring me down with disdain; not smiling, brow furrowed, piercing glare. He asked “Y’all from China?” To which I confidently replied, “No, we’re from New York!” At least the mother was sweet and nice to us. However, she didn’t correct her husband’s comment, which kinda said something about her own prejudice.

Fast forward to when I was fourteen, during my freshman year of high school:

– I had this older White woman teaching our French class, who constantly displayed subtle racial acts towards the Asian students including me. To a Chinese boy with particularly small eyes, she would always ask him if he was “sleeping”, even though he was obviously not. She would also always call me and the girl who was sitting in front of me by the wrong name. We were both Filipina, but as far as I and everyone else in the class could tell, we looked MASSIVELY different in terms of hair color and face. Thankfully, I never had this problem with any of my other teachers over the duration of my high school education.

Fast forward to when I was nineteen, and began to experience the sad reality of the ignorance exhibited by full fledged adults. more so than when I was a child:

– While we were shopping at this small Japanese store during a family vacation in California, I overheard my sister yelling (didn’t mention this earlier, but she has Autism) “NO THANKS, NO THANKS!” I went over to see what was the matter, and it turned out that this dorky White man was asking her for help in understanding what was written on a particular item. First of all, WHY was that asshole bothering my sister who obviously couldn’t comprehend what you were saying? 1.) She wasn’t wearing a store uniform, or anything that remotely resembled it. 2.) She was showing resistance, and yet he kept pestering her! I then asked him “What’s the problem?” Sure enough, he proceeded to ask ME the same questions! I was almost livid when, finally, an ACTUAL store employee came over to help him.

– During a separate occurrence, I was doing my laundry at this Filipino-owned laundromat. I was already feeling crappy that day; bouts of major depression and low self esteem. I didn’t particularly care about how I looked like, either, so I just tied my hair up and wore my PJs. Anyway, this Black man came over to me and asked, “Do you work here?” Now, MAYBE it had something to do with the way I was dressed, but I also knew that he wouldn’t have asked me that question if I were, let’s say, White. Like someone already stated in their post, this was one of the microaggressions that wore me down for the rest of the day.

These next two incidents occurred when I had my first retail position at Macy’s:

– One day, when I was organizing merchandise, this older Black female cashier told me to “come over here”. I moved slowly towards her, unsure of what I was expected to do. It turned out that there was an Asian customer at the register who didn’t speak English. The cashier then asked me if I could translate for her. I was shocked– I didn’t know what to say at first except a “Nooo….” She then called someone for help over the phone, saying, “I don’t know….she’s speaking Chinese? Asian?” Right then, I became upset. First of all, was “Chinese” the only Asian ethnicity that she could think of? Secondly, just because I look Asian, doesn’t mean that you can assume that I speak a certain language! After the cashier hung up the phone, I firmly told her, “I’m NOT Chinese, I’m Filipino”, and began to walk away. She realized her mistake and said, “Oh, I didn’t mean no offense ma’am!” Righhhht….. too late for that, honey.

-Finally, during another work-related instance, I was working with an older White female employee. When I finished, I clocked out and put on my jacket. As I began walking out of the store, that same White female employee asked me, “Were you the one who asked me about the pots”? (We were in the Household department of the store at the time.) Confused, I replied back to her “Noo….” As she was walking away, I had a bad feeling about the implication of what she said. Sure enough, she confirmed it. She turned back to me, with a wide smile as if it were some kind of a hilarious joke, and said “….She was Asian.” Oh really, lady? We were just working together half an hour ago, and because I put on a jacket, I became just another Asian face to you?

It is because of these past incidents, in ADDITION to having a very severe depressive disorder, that I detest going anywhere outside of my home (as pathetic as that sounds.) Heck, even my ex-boyfriend frequently participated in making Asian microaggressions, despite the fact that he’s Indian! (In reality, he’s just another “Uncle Tom” who’s ashamed of his heritage and who attempts to adopt the same racist mentality that White people have. But that’s another story altogether.) It DOESN’T help that my own mother could care less about racism and prejudice, either.

I just wish that, somehow, I could avoid all of these microaggressions directed towards my race. I hate the fact that I have absolutely no control over it and that I’ll probably have to live with it for the rest of my life. Sure, they all seem like minor, harmless incidents. But over the course of time, they add up.